Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 29, 2016, 08:34:41 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94240 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] Print
Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 127272 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #500 on: October 12, 2015, 09:55:15 AM »

George Will:  Impeach the IRS COmmissioner

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeach-the-irs-director/2015/10/07/a3c3b024-6c57-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html
« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 10:19:28 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #501 on: October 12, 2015, 10:19:49 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #502 on: October 26, 2015, 10:53:08 AM »

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article27951310.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #503 on: January 10, 2016, 11:50:11 PM »

http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/1740480/141-counties-u-s-registered-voters-living-residents/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #504 on: January 29, 2016, 05:53:48 PM »

New Minneapolis law, landlords have to provide voter registration package to tenants and tenants have to sign for receiving them, thanks to our local, so called, DFL.

Yet if the tenant does not mow, shovel or put garbage in their can, the landlord is held accountable.  The tenant is presumed to be not competent to be held as a responsible party.

I will give voting information to people who strike me as be well informed on all major issues.  Otherwise, someone else can give it to them.

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/inspections/rental/tenant_notifications
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 06:11:46 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #505 on: January 29, 2016, 06:38:32 PM »

OMG.  Landlords have to provide voting registrations?   angry

How did Minnesota become such a Democ(rat) stronghold?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #506 on: January 29, 2016, 07:39:30 PM »

New Minneapolis law, landlords have to provide voter registration package to tenants and tenants have to sign for receiving them, thanks to our local, so called, DFL.

Yet if the tenant does not mow, shovel or put garbage in their can, the landlord is held accountable.  The tenant is presumed to be not competent to be held as a responsible party.

I will give voting information to people who strike me as be well informed on all major issues.  Otherwise, someone else can give it to them.

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/inspections/rental/tenant_notifications

Are you being compensated for your time and effort? I thought the civil war ended involuntary servitude.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #507 on: January 29, 2016, 10:29:09 PM »

Good point.  The Obama blockworkers get good money for the same work.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #508 on: January 31, 2016, 03:27:18 PM »


By Bradley Smith
Jan. 29, 2016 5:58 p.m. ET
181 COMMENTS

Hillary Clinton has tons of cash, but she can’t shake off Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump keeps threatening to spend his own money, but he hasn’t had to use much of it. He’s leading the Republican field, feasting on free media coverage, while spending a fraction of what his rivals, and super PACs promoting them, have spent. If his rivals hadn’t been able raise large sums the GOP race would probably be over—Mr. Trump’s celebrity, name recognition and charisma would already have carried the day.

Apparently oblivious to the failure of “big money” to dictate the race, the goo-goos—the good-government crowd—have cranked up the same theme they use every election year. “We must,” they say, “have campaign finance reform.” We must “get money out of politics.” The Supreme Court must reverse its 2010 decision in Citizens United and allow “reasonable” regulation of campaign finance.

But what would “reasonable” regulation actually look like? Well, we have an idea, because once, not that long ago, Congress passed “reasonable” regulation.

Saturday marks the 40th anniversary of one of the most momentous Supreme Court decisions: Buckley v. Valeo. In Buckley, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that threatened core First Amendment freedoms. The 1976 decision is as important to democracy as 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education is to education and civil rights. Its anniversary is a time for reflection on what might lie ahead if “reformers” get their way.

Many Americans vaguely favor “campaign finance reform.” It is only when such reform gets specific that people realize—often too late—that they themselves are the targets of that reform.

Consider the law that Buckley struck down. The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 limited spending by candidates, even though there is substantial evidence—including a 2011 study in the Journal of Politics by Chris W. Bonneau and Damon M. Cann—that limits on campaign spending benefit incumbents. Buckley struck down those limits.

The 1974 FECA Amendments also capped citizens’ election spending—just $1,000 on communications (about $4,800 adjusted for inflation) “relative to” a candidate was allowed. This limit applied to political-action committees, to individuals and to groups like the Humane Society and National Rifle Association. Unions and businesses were prohibited from spending money to voice opinions “in connection with” an election.

Another provision limited how much groups could spend or contribute “for the purpose of influencing” elections without first registering with, and reporting the names of their members to, the government.

By the time Buckley was filed in 1975, the Nixon administration had already used the law’s vague language to prosecute a group of citizens who bought an ad in the New York Times calling for Nixon’s impeachment.

Buckley struck down these provisions of the law.

Imagine a world in which citizens are prohibited from spending their own money to voice and distribute their political opinions on issues and candidates separately from those candidates’ own campaigns. A world in which challengers are prohibited from spending enough to inform voters about why incumbents should be voted out of office; and where unions and trade groups are prohibited from spending money to explain how election results might affect members, employees or the economy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1975 upheld these provisions of the law. In a remarkable opinion, it said that “reforms” should not be rejected merely “because they might have some incidental, not yet defined effect on First Amendment freedoms.” Protecting free speech, the court said, was like Aesop’s famous dog “losing his bone going after its deceptively larger reflection in the water.”

Buckley brought the worst of this madness to a halt. The Supreme Court noted that “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed to . . . assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.”

The court struck down the limitations on what citizens and the organizations they belong to could spend to voice political views “relative to” candidates. Had Buckley not been decided as it was, virtually all political information today would have to be filtered through officeholders, politicians and the institutional press, with ordinary citizens as mere bystanders.

Some claim that Buckley held that money is speech—but that’s not quite right. What the court recognized is that by limiting money you can limit an activity. Limit what you may spend on fuel, and your right to travel freely is restricted. Limit what can be spent to express political views, and you limit the reach of those views and the number of people who will hear them.

Unfortunately, the court in Buckley upheld some provisions of the law. Thus the government still demands information on Americans’ political associations when they open their wallets. Contributions to candidates and parties remain subject to low limits that reduce the number of viable challengers, force officeholders to spend more time raising funds, and restrict the ability of citizens to directly support a candidate’s campaign. But absent Buckley’s core holding—that Americans have a right to spend their own money to voice their own opinions—true democracy would be pretty much unimaginable.

Mr. Smith is the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics. He previously was chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #509 on: February 06, 2016, 08:34:57 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/des-moines-register-calls-for-full-audit-of-democrat-caucuses/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #510 on: February 06, 2016, 09:26:27 AM »

good luck with that.  "what difference does it make?"   wink

Six straight coin toss wins - someone pointed out the odds of that are 64 to 1.

Where did these coins come from - Vegas or Atlantic City?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #511 on: February 22, 2016, 11:02:15 AM »

Yet the MSM of course doesn't care:

HOROWITZ: OBAMA MAKING SURE NON-CITIZENS VOTE
By: Daniel Horowitz | February 22, 2016
February 9: Voters fill out their ballots for the 2016 New Hampshire primary in voting booths at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, NH on February 9, 2016. Congressional Quarterly | AP Phot
 

While everyone is focused on the fisticuffs of this acrimonious primary, Obama is trying to build a firewall of illegal voters to ensure Democrat victory during the general election.  Through endless immigration, Democrats have already created a high floor of electoral support that is creeping ever closer to a permanent majority.  Now, they are trying tip the balance by stopping states from blocking non-citizens from voting.
Hans von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation, sounded the alarm over the weekend concerning the latest effort to block voter integrity:
On February 12, these groups filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court seeking to reverse a recent decision by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Commission’s decision allows Kansas and other states, including Arizona and Georgia, to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens register to vote when they use a federally designed registration form. An initial hearing in the case is set for Monday afternoon, February 22.
Under federal law, the EAC is responsible for designing the federal voter-registration form required by the National Voter Registration Act, or Motor Voter, as it is commonly called. While states must register voters who use the federal form, states can ask the EAC to include instructions with the federal form about additional state registration requirements. Some states are now requiring satisfactory proof of citizenship to ensure that only citizens register to vote.
Hans goes on to explain how the Obama Justice Department, instead of defending this federal agency, has joined with left wing outside groups to attack the EAC and voter integrity.  In the most egregious and unethical behavior ever from a Justice Department, they are stripping the EAC of its independent power to work with states to protect the franchise.  Just this morning the DOJ consented to the injunction against the EAC.  It is unprecedented for an administration to agree with those suing a federal agency!The hearing before D.C. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon is this afternoon and we will stay on top of the details because this will affect the outcome of our elections.
Once again, we must ask why is the future of our franchise being decided by unelected courts?
Remember, there are over 23 million non-citizens residing in this country on a permanent basis.  In 2014, three prominent political scientists conducted a study of non-citizens voting and found that up to 6.4% of all non-citizens participated in the 2008 elections and roughly 14% are eligible to vote.  This means that over 3 million non-citizens are registered to vote and roughly 1.4 million non-citizens voted in 2008. Over 80% of these illegal votes were cast for Democratic candidates, according to this study.
Professors Richman, Chattha, and Earnest concluded that non-citizens voting was enough to deliver North Carolina to Obama.  More importantly, “non-citizen votes have also led to Democratic victories in congressional races including a critical 2008 Senate race that delivered for Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.”  That race, of course, was the Minnesota Senate seat “won” by Al Franken by a margin of 312 votes.  This report estimates that at least 3,000 votes cast in Minnesota were from non-citizens.  There were also a number of other Senate races decided by a margin of one or two percentage points over the past few cycles.


Hence, Obamacare was passed illegitimately.
As Teddy Roosevelt once said, “[T]here is no enemy of free government more dangerous and none so insidious as the corruption of the electorate.”
Once again, we must ask why is the future of our franchise being decided by unelected courts?  Where is Congress in upholding the integrity of the elections that allow them to represent the sovereign citizen?   
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/obama-making-sure-non-citizens-vote#sthash.pkSyQfne.dpuf
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #512 on: February 23, 2016, 09:33:38 AM »



What a business.  Former Romeny (3 time loser) forms PAC gets tons of money to spend getting Trump and only God knows how much for herself.  Folks I am in the wrong business.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/23/former-romney-staffer-frustrated-circulates-three-page-memo-against-donald-trump/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #513 on: March 02, 2016, 08:04:12 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432182/noncitizen-voting-lawsuit-justice-department
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #514 on: March 07, 2016, 09:15:38 AM »

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/elias-online-voting-are-the-doomsayers-right/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #515 on: March 07, 2016, 10:24:03 AM »


Why wouldn't you make it easier to vote?

This is one reason why easier to vote isn't better.

Another case where the liberal view needs answering or else the young and impressionable fall prey to the other side.  Explaining these things once every four years isn't how how you compete either when the other side has total control K-12, the colleges and the media.

You vote in private, but you may have to come out in front of your neighbors and show your ID to do so.

Early voting is turning into a bad thing too.  It used to be that you needed a reason to vote absentee.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #516 on: March 09, 2016, 12:13:14 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/in-order-to-save-america-we-must-legally-prevent-oblivious-people-from-voting/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #517 on: March 11, 2016, 07:09:26 PM »

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/is_democrat_voting_a_vast_criminal_conspiracy.html 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #518 on: March 11, 2016, 08:03:52 PM »

Well wouldn't Democrat Party scabs say this,

'See we told you that forcing people to have voter IDs will suppress votes and disenfranchise people!'

Having done work at the nursing homes and seeing so many patients who are totally unaware of elections and many who have no visitors has made me wonder if it is not a frequent event for people to vote in their name.  And I have little doubt Republicans would be so inclined to do this.

Did anyone notice how the vote number spread in Michigan between Clinton and Sanders seemed to get narrower and narrower.  Gee, coincidence?

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #519 on: March 18, 2016, 05:25:17 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1186027391408818/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #520 on: March 22, 2016, 12:49:01 PM »

In response to all the complaints about big money in politics, i.e. free speech, less than we spend promoting laundry soap, it needs to be noted that $500 million plus has already been wasted on candidates that are no longer running while the frontrunners get all kinds of attention without spending that kind of money.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://time.com/4266176/campaign-finance-republican-donors-congress/
So far, donors have funneled more than $520 million collectively into campaigns and outside groups supporting Republican presidential candidates who have now dropped out — and the primaries are far from over.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #521 on: March 22, 2016, 05:28:38 PM »

 grin grin grin
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #522 on: March 26, 2016, 12:01:36 PM »

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/california-allows-illegal-aliens-to-vote-so-each-potus-ballot-should-be-disqualified/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #523 on: March 29, 2016, 11:31:09 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 314


« Reply #524 on: March 29, 2016, 11:45:44 PM »



 angry angry angry angry angry
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #525 on: March 30, 2016, 08:42:25 AM »

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/28/obama-admin-funds-blitz-to-naturalize-anti-trump-voters/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #526 on: March 31, 2016, 03:15:14 PM »

Hat tip to Mark Levin's Conservative Review.  About 35 % of the electoral votes are from states that would not allow Trump to run (in those states) due to "sore loser" laws.  That is to prevent someone who ran in the primary from running in a third party.  I never knew this.  So Trump could go 3rd party but only in states that would total about 65% of the electoral college:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/trump-independent-bid-all-but-impossible
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 07:01:37 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #527 on: April 02, 2016, 08:26:12 PM »

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #528 on: April 05, 2016, 02:16:53 PM »

Supreme Court Brings Back To Three-Fifths Slavery Formula
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on April 5, 2016
The Supreme Court decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, harkens back to how our original Constitution enshrined slavery in power until the Civil War.

The Evenwel decision holds that states may apportion districts -- and presumably Congress can apportion Congressional representation -- based on total population rather than based on those actually eligible to vote.  So now illegal immigrants, who cannot vote, are counted equally with voters in allocating legislative representation.

There is a terrible analogy between the Evenwel decision and the infamous three-fifths rule that was adopted to determine slave representation in the House of Representatives.

At the original Constitutional Convention, the northern and southern states wrangled over how to count slaves -- who could not vote -- in allocating congressional districts to the states.  The South wanted its voting power enhanced so slave states could come closer to a majority in the House of Representatives and have more electoral votes in choosing a president (electoral votes are allocated by adding the number of senators and congressmen from each state).

The northern states relented and agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person in apportioning legislative seats.  The South and the slave interest benefited enormously from the compromise.

So, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Evenwel, illegal immigrants are to be the modern equivalent of slaves in proportioning representation in Congress.  Like slaves, these illegal immigrants cannot vote.  But they are now to be counted in determining how many seats in Congress each state gets.  These phantom voters have no more right to influence the composition of our Congress than the slaves did -- unless and until they can vote.

As Gary Willis explains in his book Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power (2003), the distortions caused by the three-fifths rule permitted the slave power to remain in ascendency.  The Southern slave states had 47 House members in 1793 -- under the three-fifths rule -- while they should have had only 33.  By 1812, they had 76 but should have been entitled to only 59.  By 1833, they had 98 as opposed to the 73 they should have had. 

Willis calls Jefferson the "Negro President" because it was the extra electoral votes that came from the three-fifths rule that let Jefferson eek past President John Adams in the electoral college in the election of 1800. In that contest, Jefferson won with 73 electoral votes to Adams' 65.  But had the Electoral College votes only reflected vote eligible citizens, and excluded the three-fifths rule, Adams would have won.

This odious comparison illustrates the injustice of using illegal immigrants to apportion power but not giving them a voice in how it is used.  Either make them citizens and count their votes or leave them out of apportionment.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #529 on: April 16, 2016, 12:18:21 PM »

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/felons-voting-rights-history/2015/04/16/id/638889/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #530 on: April 17, 2016, 09:03:20 AM »


Name the party that pushes felons to vote.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #531 on: April 20, 2016, 09:18:21 AM »

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/19/474896027/after-more-than-100-000-voters-dropped-in-brooklyn-city-officials-call-for-actio
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #532 on: April 20, 2016, 10:32:53 AM »

Is Bernie stupid or what?  Does he really think complaining to the DNC is going to get a legitimate response?  And what a gigantic blunder for him to let Clinton off the hook with the emails.  May not have made a difference but it might have.  Definitely a shmoe, and I think shmegegi fits too.  Who the hell would want this fool negotiating for the United States?  What a dope.

This fits Bernie:  "Shmo(e) - Naive person, easy to deceive; a goof (Americanism)"
"Shmegegi - Buffoon, idiot, fool"

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/19/judge-napolitano-bernie-sanders-accuses-hillary-clinton-violating-finance-laws
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #533 on: April 20, 2016, 11:48:17 AM »

ccp:  "Is Bernie stupid or what? 

   - To be an American socialist in 2016, yes, stupid, ignorant or dishonest.  I suspect all three.  Might add hypocrite to that.

"What a gigantic blunder for him to let Clinton off the hook with the emails."

   - Isn't that the truth!  His strategic concern for himself and the careful positioning of his pretend challenge to her then was bigger than any real security concern for the country that her blunder created.  Now it turns out that being honest might have been better, even for a Democrat. Who knew?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #534 on: April 22, 2016, 02:52:09 PM »

Returning the Clinton gang into power.  Sad Virginia , because of the Northern part turned liberal (the DC crowd) and that sleaze is now governor.  Some sleaze balls never go away:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/virginia-governor-restores-voting-rights-200k-felons-154622727.html?nhp=1
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!