California introduces bill forcing presidential candidates to release taxes

a reply to: Gothmog

From 1864 to Present, Presidential Voting in California.

No. of Elections = 42
Votes for Dem =17
Votes for Rep = 24
Votes for Other = 1

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Not according to whom the reply was directed.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And they forgot one.....
Nothing about the presidential elections...

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Gothmog

From 1864 to Present, Presidential Voting in California.

No. of Elections = 42
Votes for Dem =17
Votes for Rep = 24
Votes for Other = 1

en.wikipedia.org...

See my reply
You didnt look at the timeline , did ya ? No , you didnt.
And some of the major votes went to Republicans that had liberal leanings.
The surprising thing though , 1960 California voted for Nixon over Kennedy.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Is there a State system you think is "fair" or that does address the massive voter fraud you seem to think is happening?

Followup: is it your assertion that duplicate or bad information on the California voting role automatically means that there was voter fraud? If so, can you demonstrate how that happens exactly? (With evidence)

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I wonder how this will get by the legal system. Other than California's system anyway.

Ever hear of the Tenth Amendment?

You do know the presidential requirements are listed in the constitution right?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I wonder how this will get by the legal system. Other than California's system anyway.

Ever hear of the Tenth Amendment?

You do know the presidential requirements are listed in the constitution right?

That must be why I mentioned the age requirement in Article II.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye
And, in which case, they are just granted voting rights?

Pretty much.

And it's ok. I am coming to terms with it and have rounded the hump from despair to apathy, as far as disnenfranchisement go. Even if I didn't feel disenfranchised by this, I know I would still feel like my vote was worthless in a federal election.

And it's not just the easy exploits in the system.

I felt disenfranchised, in 2000, when the SCOTUS got the last say on the election, and I felt disenfranchised by Democratic party leaders, in 2008, when the Rules & Bylaws Committee voted that party rules were more important than votes cast in Michigan and Florida.

If they want to defile my vote...they will.

I want to point out the exploits in the HAVA and other voter reform laws, but I also know there's a back up exploit, and another and another and another. The biggest cheaters are the politicians, not the people.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Pretty much.

I know you generally research what you say. Do you have something to support this claim? Or is it along the lines of "What else could be the reason for the no-matches?"

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
The biggest cheaters are the politicians, not the people.

Which is exactly why I used to describe myself as a leftist.

The only reasonable path is constant revolution. When one side wins and tries to set up the new authoritarian regime, tear it down too.

But then I got old ... and tired.

a reply to: Phage

It's my opinion, Phage. Based on me "generally" researching things and absent evidence to the contrary. And, I don't find the opinion(s) you cited to be evidence to the contrary.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I know.
I know in which direction your biases lean. As do you mine.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Is there a State system you think is "fair" or that does address the massive voter fraud you seem to think is happening?

Followup: is it your assertion that duplicate or bad information on the California voting role automatically means that there was voter fraud? If so, can you demonstrate how that happens exactly? (With evidence)

No.

And I "assume" the fraud happens. I am aware that is only an 'assumption.' So, that does not equate to me "thinking it's happening." Absent any evidence to the contrary, that is the assumption I believe to be most logical.

As to your followup, are you asking me to demonstrate how an ineligible person could register and vote fraudulently in California?

a reply to: Phage

It's true. I very much hate the two parties and put nothing past them. And they do make the laws.

I admit my bias. If someone thinks that's an unfair bias, then they probably won't appreciate my POV.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The biases I was speaking of were yours toward speculation and mine toward evidence.

Toward politics I would say we are on the same page.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The biases I was speaking of were yours toward speculation and mine toward evidence.

Toward politicians I would say we are on the same page.

You have no more evidence than I do.

You are speculating that if there was some kind of voter verification system in place for voters who register without providing a SS# or DL/ID#, then no significant amount of them would be found fraudulent.

I feel the evidence shows I should speculate such a system would catch all kinds of fraud.

A person's lame, nonsensical excuse, on behalf of the SSA, does not constitute "evidence." It's ridiculous on its face.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You have no more evidence than I do.

Correct. You have no evidence of rampant voter fraud. You have speculation based on bad data. An audit of that data concludes is it unreliable. If you can present evidence that the audit is faulty, please do.

With a lack of such data, I do not accept the premise that there is rampant voter fraud.

My bias is toward data.



As far as the actual topic of this thread goes, we seem to have reached an end.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You have no more evidence than I do.

Correct. You have no evidence of rampant voter fraud. You have speculation based on bad data.

You've shown no evidence the data is bad. You have shown an illogical opinion.

Where is the corrected data?

You are speculating on some imaginary "better" data when the SSA has the data I POSTED up on their site, right now.

Where is the *cough* real data of matches and non-matches if the data I cited isn't official.

Bias towards evidence, my a$$.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You've shown no evidence the data is bad.

I showed you an audit of the system. Do you have evidence that the audit is faulty? I would be more than willing to consider it. Or do you just have "No, that can't be right!", which would be your opinion.

You are speculating on some imaginary "better" data

Am I? Where did I express such speculation?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You've shown no evidence the data is bad.

I showed you an audit of the system. Do you have evidence that the audit is faulty? I would be more than willing to consider it.

You are speculating on some imaginary "better" data

Am I? Where did I express such speculation?

Where is this corrected data?

If the system is so broken that more than 5 out of 6 California voter registration applications are unfairly rejected by the SSA, why hasn't the system been fixed in 15 years and where is this adjusted data based on the audit you are basing your specious, speculative speculation about data on?

I am comfortable with my speculation.

You have yours, I have mine. But don't fool yourself into thinking you have data...evidence....on your side.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Where is this corrected data?

What corrected data? Did I say there was corrected data? Where did I say that?

If the system is so broken that more than 5 out of 6 voter registrations applications can't be verified, in California, why hasn't it been fixed in 15 years and where is this adjusted data based on the audit you are basing your specious, speculative speculation about data on?

Lots of thing have been broken in government for a long time. Apparently Congress was never presented with a required report about the system. What speculation do you speak of on my part? I have seen evidence that the HAVV system is broken. I have not seen evidence that it is not.

Is it your bias which leads you to believe that, in this case, the federal government is doing something well?