Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 09, 2016, 05:52:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92606 Posts in 2299 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* 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 121166 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7497


« 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: 35855


« 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: 35855


« 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: 35855


« 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: 7497


« 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: 4974


« 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: 13267


« 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: 7497


« 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: 35855


« 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: 35855


« 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: 4974


« 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
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!