The surprise we have coming for 2008

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
May 10, 2007
80,182
2,272
1,283
SANCHEZ: Can you explain what “caging” is? I’m not familiar with that term.

GOODLING: My understanding — and I don’t actually know a lot about it — is that it’s a direct-mail term, that people who do direct mail, when they separate addresses that may be good versus addresses that may be bad. That’s the best information that I have, is that it’s a direct mail term used by vendors in that circumstance.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list

Caging has also been used as a form of voter suppression. A political party challenges the validity of a voter's registration; for the voter's ballot to be counted, the voter must prove that their registration is valid.

Voters targeted by caging are often the most vulnerable: those who are unfamiliar with their rights under the law, and those who cannot spare the time, effort, and expense of proving that their registration is valid. Ultimately, caging works by dissuading a voter from casting a ballot, or by ensuring that they cast a provisional ballot, which is less likely to be counted.

With one type of caging, a political party sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable - because, for example, the voter refuses to sign for it, the voter isn't present for delivery, or the voter is homeless - the party uses that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent. It is this use of direct mail caging techniques to target voters which probably resulted in the application of the name to the political tactic.

On the day of the election, when the voter arrives at the poll and requests a ballot, an operative of the party challenges the validity of their registration.

While the challenge process is prescribed by law, the use of broad, partisan challenges is controversial. For example, in the United States Presidential Election of 2004, the Republican Party employed this process to challenge the validity of tens of thousands of voter registrations in contested states like Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Republican Party argued that the challenges were necessary to combat widespread voter fraud. The Democratic Party countered that the challenges were tantamount to voter suppression, and further argued that the Republican Party had targeted voter registrations on the basis of the race of the voter, in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act law.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT SUPPRESSION OF LEGAL VOTERS!
 
Get back to me when you oppose dead people voting in large numbers for democrats. Or illegal aliens. Or the process of voting 2 or more times that democrats use.
 
Get back to me when you oppose dead people voting in large numbers for democrats. Or illegal aliens. Or the process of voting 2 or more times that democrats use.


get back to me when you can document anything other than rare, inconsequential examples of any of that.... and anecdotes don't count.
 
please... do tell...who DID say that the ends justified the means?

and republicans lynch black folks to keep them from voting, right?
 
please... do tell...who DID say that the ends justified the means?

and republicans lynch black folks to keep them from voting, right?

The lynchings that DID occur where almost exclusively done by Democrats. And they DID occur at times to PREVENT blacks from voting.

Shall I link to your tirade where you stated you only cared about the end result? That any ally was a good ally , that any one willing to vote for what YOU wanted was a good point?
 
The lynchings that DID occur where almost exclusively done by Democrats. And they DID occur at times to PREVENT blacks from voting.

Shall I link to your tirade where you stated you only cared about the end result? That any ally was a good ally , that any one willing to vote for what YOU wanted was a good point?


and republicans have never been guilty of voter fraud. you are all just a bunch of patriotic angels.

And I repeat that I don't really care too much WHO votes for democrats. If any American eligible to vote decides to pull the democratic lever, I am not going to refuse that vote. Neither will support fashioning the platform of my party to pander to any loony far left voters.

tell me again.... does the republican party refuse to count the votes of southern racists or folks who agree with the murdering of abortion doctors? I don't recall the republicans saying that their scruples would not allow them to accept the votes of Americans whose political philosophies were too repugnant for them. Please link me to some instances of THAT.
 
A strawman argument. And you know it. The Republican Party has and continues to expel far right extremists , preventing them from using the Republican apperatus and title.

Meanwhile the Democrats not only DO NOT expel criminals they promote them.
 
Report refutes fraud at poll sites
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — At a time when many states are instituting new requirements for voter registration and identification, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud those measures seek to stop.
USA TODAY obtained the report from the commission four months after it was delivered by two consultants hired to write it. The commission has not distributed it publicly.

NEW LAWS: Thousands of voters shut out | Read the preliminary report

At least 11 states have approved new rules for independent voter-registration drives or requirements that voters produce specific forms of photo ID at polling places. Several of those laws have been blocked in court, most recently in Arizona last week. The House of Representatives last month approved a photo-ID law, now pending in the Senate.


http://tinyurl.com/nfrq4
 
Explain again how requiring one to actually provide proof they are who they say they are is BAD when they arrive to vote.

What exactly is gained by opposing identification at polling places?
 
Personal opinion....

I think we should change our voting law to allow 3 days to vote in Federal elections. I also think with that change that no one should be allowed to claim one side won or lost until the polls have closed in all locations on the third day.

One of the days to vote should be a non working day. Either a weekend or a Federal holiday.

I would also tentatively support an effort to change the Federal election to October so as to allow an extra month for "challenges" to elections. With this change I would support a federal law that required all States to allow such challenges for that extra month.
 
little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud those measures seek to stop.

The bipartisan report by two consultants to the election commission casts doubt on the problem those laws are intended to address. "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters," the report says.

It has been found to inhibit legal voters from voting.
 
You went on and on about a "Felon's" list and how it was a bad thing, but you don't mind the potential for abuse that no ID can cause.

I wonder why that is?
 
Here is the problem with your arguement.

the "fraud" you speak of is neglagible.

that is why I gave you that study.

When it aint broke dont fix it.

Now the Felons list has shown to have changed the outcome of an election.

Which do you fix?

And here I have shown you another approaching problem.

You see with this caging thing they send a letter to the home address of a soldier that says "DO NOT FORWARD" then when hes serving in Iraq he cant respond and gets taken off the voting list and cant vote.

This is what the DOJ was talking to each other about doing hense the "LOST" emails.

They have the race of the soldiers and can taget black and other minorities who vote predomanately Dem.

Its the same thing they did with the felons list.

You must be very proud of your party for being so clever huh?
 
This is why Bush hires NOTHING but Cronies ad is very loyal to them when they are going down.

Gonzales will end up going and he will end up with a gravy job in the end.

Bush has very wealthy friends to hire him to a sweetheart position.
 
A strawman argument. And you know it. The Republican Party has and continues to expel far right extremists , preventing them from using the Republican apperatus and title.

Meanwhile the Democrats not only DO NOT expel criminals they promote them.


bullshit. the democratic party apparatus is not controlled or used by left wing extremists (unless, like most intolerant republican ASSHOLES I know, you define "left wing extremist" as anyone to the left of YOU)

And my point, which you not all that deftly avoided, was that "extremist" votes are just as "valuable" to both sides, and for you to castigate me for accepting the votes of extremists is fucking profoundly hypocritical.
 
and regarding "felons".... what does the phrase "pay one's debt to society" even MEAN if you never ever get done paying it?

And one wonders where a country like, say, Australia would be today if they did not believe in the rehabilitation of criminals and their ability to contribute to society.

FYI.... Maine even allows citizens who are incarcerated to vote!
 
BTW

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR VOTE IN FLORIDA NEVER COMMITED ANY CRIME!

how many times do you have to be told this???????????

their names were similar to a felons name THAT IS ALL!
 

Forum List

Back
Top