Who do you support for Governor in Oh...

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#25877 Feb 22, 2014
Hey, X, could you address some of the questions I asked a page back? I'm rather interested in the answers, if you could provide them!

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#25880 Feb 22, 2014
These, please.
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid that we're still not getting any useable content to fuel this discussion, rather very general platitudes. If I could gently ask again for a bit more information about your ideas:
There are some very concrete figures and some projected figures based around a range of models (of varying soundness). You've talked in very concrete terms about how early voting and on day registration raised voter fraud. Can you point me to the evidence that helped you come to this conclusion? If you're unable to furnish evidence, what brought you to this conclusion?

To rephrase my other questions, in hope of getting an answer: would you support means testing to vote that may exclude you, in hopes that this would better the nation in the same ways that you suggest that your proposed means testing might? Would you support a university degree being the bar to vote, for example? Or a debt free home ownership? A percentage share in publicly held companies? Could you talk a bit about why or why not?

And again, how do you think that your proposed means testing might mirror or differ from historical means testing in the US? Do you think that historical means testing was effective and fairly adjudicated? Why or why not?
Reality Check

Lima, OH

#25881 Feb 22, 2014
tranpsosition wrote:
These, please.
<quoted text>
It's really simple. The truck driving weather expert wants the "freedom" to ignore votes that don't line up with his maniacal conservative overlord's corporate agenda.
"If you know you can't win, just change the rules."
Canton

Canton, OH

#25883 Feb 22, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. So the employees get to pick the CEO. They know nothing about making profit, nothing about the market, nothing about business, and they get to pick the CEO.
As I stated would likely happen, they pick a guy that will give them more money. However that means less pay for the CEO. So instead of paying a CEO five million dollars per year, they hire one for a million a year.
Pretty soon, company sales start sinking, then company profits. Now the CEO has to layoff workers. Then their stockholders get wind of this, and they start to dump company stocks. This means the company has much less revenue to work with.
How did all this happen to your company? Simple. You picked the cheap CEO, and the good CEO that wanted 5 million dollars per year to work for your company now works for your competitor, and it's your competitor that's responsible for your slumping sales, profits and sales of stock. Eventually, that competitors CEO is going to put you out of a job.
That's why no company allows their employees to pick their CEO.
A climate expert and prophet in the business world that can predict the outcome of any scenario. You're so dreamy. That is when you're not pissing in a bottle and hooking up with lot lizards. Was there any particular reason why you were so interested in what I call reliable sources? I mean other than the fact that you were going to try to call me out on them and you fell flat on your Rush Limbaugh the liar loving face.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25884 Feb 22, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like they did in the Democrat led Senate???? Or maybe like DumBama has with Commie Care nearly 30 times?
Let's all Google "Bush stole the election" and see what we can find. Oh. and according to many sources, it doesn't matter which election you choose. Seems a lot like the man didn't get elected at all.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25885 Feb 22, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. So the employees get to pick the CEO. They know nothing about making profit, nothing about the market, nothing about business, and they get to pick the CEO.
As I stated would likely happen, they pick a guy that will give them more money. However that means less pay for the CEO. So instead of paying a CEO five million dollars per year, they hire one for a million a year.
Pretty soon, company sales start sinking, then company profits. Now the CEO has to layoff workers. Then their stockholders get wind of this, and they start to dump company stocks. This means the company has much less revenue to work with.
How did all this happen to your company? Simple. You picked the cheap CEO, and the good CEO that wanted 5 million dollars per year to work for your company now works for your competitor, and it's your competitor that's responsible for your slumping sales, profits and sales of stock. Eventually, that competitors CEO is going to put you out of a job.
That's why no company allows their employees to pick their CEO.
If the employees got to pick out the CEO, then how could the owner ever be able to hand it to his inept, lazy and unqualified son? There's what you say, and on the opposite side of the coin, there's the real world.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25886 Feb 22, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like they did in the Democrat led Senate???? Or maybe like DumBama has with Commie Care nearly 30 times?
Or maybe the most ineffective and obstructionist Congress in all of history, trying to shoot down the health care act over and over again, while accomplishing nothing else.(Also see the reason why the GOP suddenly views the Tea Party like a bunch of lepers)
sdfghjk

Cincinnati, OH

#25887 Feb 22, 2014
boooo

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#25892 Feb 22, 2014
tranpsosition wrote:
These, please.
<quoted text>
Or, I suppose if the questions are too difficult or too much trouble, that you needn't bother. Shame though, I was pretty interested.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#25894 Feb 22, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe I answered your questions, so which answer were you unhappy with or feel I didn't address?
Sorry, I didn't see any of my points addressed, just a very general ramble. If you could repost them?

To keep it very short, I was looking for:

What data makes you think voter fraud increased during early voting and same day voting? If there is no data, what supports your conclusion?

Would you support means testing for voting that excluded you? If not, why?

How would you place your proposed means testing in a context with historical means testing in the US? Do you feel that historic means testing in the US was effective and just?
xgdkygfch

Cincinnati, OH

#25895 Feb 22, 2014
me too

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#25897 Feb 22, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, what "means testing" would exclude anybody that takes an interest in country, politics and policies from voting? Because I think that's what you're after here.
Like I said earlier, I should be means tested if it were up to me to choose a pitcher or quarterback for either of our sports teams. I don't know squat about sports and I certainly don't follow it. If it were an option, I might pick a guy that dresses good, looks good or muscular. I might pick him because his wife is hot or he tells funny jokes. But I wouldn't have the capability to pick a sports figure based on his accomplishments, record or ability to forward our team. I don't know enough about it, and certainly wouldn't be disappointed if I were means tested out the door. Me not having a say-so would be the best thing for our teams.
As far as early voting goes, being able to register and vote the same day doesn't give our poll workers enough time to verify who it is that's voting. Not that it means they won't do some leg work later. I don't know how that process of same day voting works. But what I will say is that if you don't take voting serious enough to attend on the normal voting day, or make arrangements to absentee vote if you can't make it on voting day, you are probably not all that interested in voting, nor have the knowledge to make a sound decision when voting.
People like myself (and I'm sure many others here) make sure they are there to vote because the future of our country means that much to us be it a liberal, conservative or Libertarian. It's important to us. We understand the issues and what's at stake. Many voters in America know more about their favorite American Idol contestant than their Congress person, Senator and even presidential choices. But not us in these political blogs. We spend our time here instead of the television discussing issues, learning things from other people, reading links and doing our own research.
People are more worried about disenfranchising an individual voter than they are disenfranchising all citizens of this country by electing pinheads they knew nothing about. What did Obama have to offer that Hillary didn't? She had eight years in the White House and eight years in the Senate. Sixteen years of federal government experience, and people picked a community organizer based on Hope and Change???? Does that sound like an informed electorate to you?
Hrm, I'm still not sure I'm managing to ask things in a way that makes you able to understand.

You talked, very concretely, about how early voting and registration on the day HAD RESULTED IN greater voter fraud. Can you talk about the evidence that lead you to understand this? Or is it just something you've extrapolated from your feelings that "As far as early voting goes, being able to register and vote the same day doesn't give our poll workers enough time to verify who it is that's voting." I may have mistaken a general statement as an actual claim that fraud had occurred, you may have intended to say that it is just that you feel fraud would be more likely?

Do you think/feel/know that fraud occurred, or were you just trying to say that you feel it would be more likely in these contexts? Would evidence help you feel that you were making better informed claims?

Historically means testing for voting has excluded large groups of the population. I'm not sure if you clearly understand that or are able to contextualize your suggested hurdles (which were tax payments and a comprehension test) within this context? If you need help, I'm happy to talk more about means test to vote that have been present in the American system in the past. There have been a number of exclusions which have excluded potential voters throughout the history of voting.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25900 Feb 22, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
The only people I would like to see excluded from voting are working aged non-taxpayers, illegal voters, and people that have no idea of what they are voting on or for. I know that will never happen, but it's just how I feel.
Voter fraud is one of those things that can't be proven until somebody is caught. In other words, if I go to your car every night and steal one gallon of gasoline, I may be able to do that for months or years because it's not very noticeable. But once I'm caught, I'm only guilty of stealing one gallon of gasoline that night.
So am I speculating on same day voter fraud? Yes I am. Again, it can't be voter fraud until somebody is actually caught doing it. But I see the opportunity. I've seen some very shady people in front of me at my voting place come in with a utility bill and actually got to vote. That utility bill could have been stolen out of somebody's mailbox, thrown in the trash, been altered using scanning and printing devices. It's not proof-positive of somebody's identification.
Bottom line is this: I want to see honest elections no matter who wins. We have stringent regulations when it comes to purchasing cigarettes, alcohol, getting an ATM card, cashing a check, yet for some reason, we have willy-nilly requirements when it comes to voting. This is what I want to see stopped.
Just out of curiosity how can you determine a persons knowledge or lack thereof on the issues that are to be voted on and the people running for office. Is a test required or perhaps a short quiz before a person can exercise their right to vote.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25902 Feb 22, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love to see that, but of course, it will never happen.
Again I reiterate: we had two candidates on the Democrat side running for the presidential nomination. One was a community organizer, and the other had 16 years of experience in federal politics. The Democrats chose the one with the least experience, ideas or knowledge.
When the general election came up, one candidate was a war hero, a man that suffered injuries while being a POW for several years. A man that had extensive experience in the Senate. But we chose the community organizer.
That being said, don't you think we should have some sort of test to determine the political intelligence of the voter?
Perhaps we can use the same test on those who voted against homosexuals getting married.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#25904 Feb 23, 2014
joanna50 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps we can use the same test on those who voted against homosexuals getting married.
why?

it would appear at face value that same sex marriage is 100% political, and deliberately in the face of citizens to distract them.

Everyone is limited to marriage of the opposite sex by law. Everyone.

If you want a same sex relationship with strings attached like a marriage license, then you need to form a legal partnership with your partner.

A legal partnership with a lover or business partner has the strings you claim you want to have in your relationship.

All the political posturing proves either laziness, or being a legal couple is not what the adgenda is.

In 1 month all same sex couples can have the exact strings a marriage license provides.

Go for it........just end the stupidity and slap in the face of all married couples of re-defining words.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25905 Feb 23, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
why?
it would appear at face value that same sex marriage is 100% political, and deliberately in the face of citizens to distract them.
Everyone is limited to marriage of the opposite sex by law. Everyone.
If you want a same sex relationship with strings attached like a marriage license, then you need to form a legal partnership with your partner.
A legal partnership with a lover or business partner has the strings you claim you want to have in your relationship.
All the political posturing proves either laziness, or being a legal couple is not what the adgenda is.
In 1 month all same sex couples can have the exact strings a marriage license provides.
Go for it........just end the stupidity and slap in the face of all married couples of re-defining words.
How can I form a legal partnership and same sex marriage isn't political at least it wasn't until it got so much opposition. You are wrong and nobody is trying to downgrade traditional marriage except for the ones who take it for granted and straight couples are the ones infamous for that. You tell me how I can partner up with the same benefits as marriage.
Reality Check

Lima, OH

#25906 Feb 23, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
why?
it would appear at face value that same sex marriage is 100% political, and deliberately in the face of citizens to distract them.
Everyone is limited to marriage of the opposite sex by law. Everyone.
If you want a same sex relationship with strings attached like a marriage license, then you need to form a legal partnership with your partner.
A legal partnership with a lover or business partner has the strings you claim you want to have in your relationship.
All the political posturing proves either laziness, or being a legal couple is not what the adgenda is.
In 1 month all same sex couples can have the exact strings a marriage license provides.
Go for it........just end the stupidity and slap in the face of all married couples of re-defining words.
Pipe down and get your lazyass to church with the rest of the "morally superior" bigots, you cannibalistic lying scumbag...
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#25907 Feb 23, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love to see that, but of course, it will never happen.
Again I reiterate: we had two candidates on the Democrat side running for the presidential nomination. One was a community organizer, and the other had 16 years of experience in federal politics. The Democrats chose the one with the least experience, ideas or knowledge.
When the general election came up, one candidate was a war hero, a man that suffered injuries while being a POW for several years. A man that had extensive experience in the Senate. But we chose the community organizer.
That being said, don't you think we should have some sort of test to determine the political intelligence of the voter?
You'll probably regret that testing idea, especially in the southern states.
The GOP has turned into 3 gallons of crazy stupid stuffed in a 2 gallon bucket...with a broken handle, and it shows everyday just about everytime they open their mouths and speak. Party leadership even tutors and warns them, but they can't stop or help themselves. Hard to hide the obvious.
They claim there is no bigotry in the GOP and there can't be because:
They are concerned about protecting the religious freedom of Jeebus.
They are concerned about protecting ladyparts.
They are concerned about making sure that voter fraud doesn't occur with minorities.
They are concerned with making sure that gays don't have miserable marriages like us straight folks.
They are concerned that the non-aborted fetus does not have adequate food, shelter or education.
They can't be bigoted because they are only looking out for A Murika's best interests.
Reality Check

Lima, OH

#25908 Feb 23, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>You'll probably regret that testing idea, especially in the southern states.
The GOP has turned into 3 gallons of crazy stupid stuffed in a 2 gallon bucket...with a broken handle, and it shows everyday just about everytime they open their mouths and speak. Party leadership even tutors and warns them, but they can't stop or help themselves. Hard to hide the obvious.
They claim there is no bigotry in the GOP and there can't be because:
They are concerned about protecting the religious freedom of Jeebus.
They are concerned about protecting ladyparts.
They are concerned about making sure that voter fraud doesn't occur with minorities.
They are concerned with making sure that gays don't have miserable marriages like us straight folks.
They are concerned that the non-aborted fetus does not have adequate food, shelter or education.
They can't be bigoted because they are only looking out for A Murika's best interests.
Funny how XXX CLAIMS to be concerned with the "political intelligence of voters", but still believes in Obamaphones, fake birth certificates, and invisible commies, huh?
Gotta love how these maniacal conservatives always whine about the "big bad gubment" overstepping it's bounds, unless they're telling us who to marry, which religion we should teach in public schools, how to reproduce, or how to vote...
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#25910 Feb 23, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
The only people I would like to see excluded from voting are working aged non-taxpayers, illegal voters, and people that have no idea of what they are voting on or for. I know that will never happen, but it's just how I feel.
Voter fraud is one of those things that can't be proven until somebody is caught. In other words, if I go to your car every night and steal one gallon of gasoline, I may be able to do that for months or years because it's not very noticeable. But once I'm caught, I'm only guilty of stealing one gallon of gasoline that night.
So am I speculating on same day voter fraud? Yes I am. Again, it can't be voter fraud until somebody is actually caught doing it. But I see the opportunity. I've seen some very shady people in front of me at my voting place come in with a utility bill and actually got to vote. That utility bill could have been stolen out of somebody's mailbox, thrown in the trash, been altered using scanning and printing devices. It's not proof-positive of somebody's identification.
Bottom line is this: I want to see honest elections no matter who wins. We have stringent regulations when it comes to purchasing cigarettes, alcohol, getting an ATM card, cashing a check, yet for some reason, we have willy-nilly requirements when it comes to voting. This is what I want to see stopped.
Illegal voters are already not allowed to vote. I gave you the answer to the voter fraud claims and as always you tried to sidestep it and deflect away from the truth that you don't like. You know ,that election swaying fraud of 135 cases out of 5.6 MILLION votes cast.

www.nationalmemo.com/amazing-how-the-only-gro...

Now on this taxpayer thingy, paying taxes are paying taxes to create revenue for governemnt and public operations.
The next time I go anywhere to make any type of purchase(gas, appliances, materials, etc.) I can tell that cashier that I don't plan on voting this year or next so I don't have to pay any taxes on those items. I can refuse to pay my property taxes and levy money that was approved by the voters but seeing how I'm not going to vote means that I don't have to pay for that crap I didn't vote for. Gee, thanks for the heads up, gonna save me tons of money.
Oh now wait a minute. What happens to those all those rich people who have those gaggles of lawyers working for them to make sure that they pay no taxes? Never mind we all already know that they buy all of their votes. Only in 'Murika'

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rocky River Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Attorney Stephen Wolf. Apr '16 Stephen Wolf Atto... 4
danger Apr '16 KDKGJ 1
Lily Eyring (Oct '13) Mar '16 Uncle Daryl 2
Toczek Mar '16 Uncle Daryl 1
News 10 Things to Know for Thursday Mar '16 USA today 1
News The Latest: Trump not attending March 21 debate... Mar '16 Responsibility 2
Review: Patient First - John Kavlich MD (May '09) Mar '16 Mfoster 62
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rocky River Mortgages