1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats.

[airplanemechanic]

Recently I’ve heard republicans support two things. Only property owners should be allowed to vote and you should have to pass a test. they know millions less would vote if they could do these things.

I've long thought that it wasn't fair for someone with no skin in the game (no job) to be able to vote for someone who would raise my income taxes. You don't have to own property in my mind to vote, but you do need to be employed or have some kind of income, even disability. SOMETHING that you pay income taxes on to put you in the same boat as the people you're voting to raise income taxes on.

I mean if I got no job WTF does it matter to me if I vote for someone who will raise income taxes on those suckers who actually go to work, ya know? It's no different than you not having a vote on the board of a company if you don't own stock in it. You have no skin in the game.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Recently I’ve heard republicans support two things. Only property owners should be allowed to vote and you should have to pass a test. they know millions less would vote if they could do these things.

Well, duh, that'd exclude 30% of the Dem base, easily.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Recently I’ve heard republicans support two things. Only property owners should be allowed to vote and you should have to pass a test. they know millions less would vote if they could do these things.

At this point, I would no longer oppose a return to only property owners voting.

 

[ummmmmm]

If the court has been dominated by Republicans, why have they not abolished roe vs wade like you freaky little lemmings have been screeching about for decades and are still screeching about to this day?

(1) Sorry if I am duplicating other posts that have happened, just jumping in.
(2) IMO -- and AGAIN, just saying IMO -- RvW was absurd constitutional (mis-)interpretation. But once it was interpreted that way, SCOTUS is reluctant to argue with precedent. And the longer it stays in place, the more powerful the force of that precedent. There really are important benefits to SCOTUS not re-doing every past decision as if it was a fresh debate; reluctance to overturn prior decisions make sense as one critical factor (albeit among many critical factors).
(3) RvW is probably gone imminently, either by being directly overturned (which I prefer from an intellectual honesty perspective) or through silly games where they overturn it while pretending not to (probably the politically smarter path). Previously that didn't happen because the public opinion backlash would have knocked Rs out of office. Currently I think the R party is comfortable being politically unpopular overall, playing to its base, and instead relying on mechanisms like voting restrictions, gerrymandering, small state structural biases, and procedural gamesmanship to try to keep control of an unconsenting nation, so I think now is when conservative SCOTUS makes its move on RvW. (And if any Rs aren't comfortable with that, too late to change the approach, that ship has sailed.) No crystal ball here, just predicting.

 

[Michael1985]

That’s one reason 2000 was so important they stole the election. Who decided Florida? That’s right. The Supreme Court and Jeb bush cronies.

Your guy lost fair and square. It was some twenty years ago. It's beyond time you got over it and moved on with your life.

 

[sealybobo]

I've long thought that it wasn't fair for someone with no skin in the game (no job) to be able to vote for someone who would raise my income taxes. You don't have to own property in my mind to vote, but you do need to be employed or have some kind of income, even disability. SOMETHING that you pay income taxes on to put you in the same boat as the people you're voting to raise income taxes on.

I mean if I got no job WTF does it matter to me if I vote for someone who will raise income taxes on those suckers who actually go to work, ya know? It's no different than you not having a vote on the board of a company if you don't own stock in it. You have no skin in the game.

I'm trying to see it your way. You make a good point. But eventually it's going to come down to this. And to me, this is the only real battle every country has. It's called class warfare. And right now the workers in America are getting hosed. Not all of us but too many of us. So in your scenario, eventually the workers will vote to raise wages and taxes on the rich who rule us. What will they do then? Then they'll say only property owners should be allowed to vote. So that will tip elections more in favor of the rich again. And if that doesn't do it, start making everyone take a test in order to vote. You have to know how many branches of government we have and who's 3rd in line to be POTUS?

Our elected officials decide on a lot more things than income taxes. Guns, gays, religion, etc.

One more thing. I notice most republicans deny class warfare exists. But don't you view poor people voting to raise rich people's taxes as class warfare? Of course you do. So then you do admit class warfare exists. And since Reagan, we've been losing.

 

[sealybobo]

Your guy lost fair and square. It was some twenty years ago. It's beyond time you got over it and moved on with your life.

Maybe in 20 you'll get over Trump's fair and square loss.

 

[sealybobo]

(1) Sorry if I am duplicating other posts that have happened, just jumping in.
(2) IMO -- and AGAIN, just saying IMO -- RvW was absurd constitutional (mis-)interpretation. But once it was interpreted that way, SCOTUS is reluctant to argue with precedent. And the longer it stays in place, the more powerful the force of that precedent. There really are important benefits to SCOTUS not re-doing every past decision as if it was a fresh debate; reluctance to overturn prior decisions make sense as one critical factor (albeit among many critical factors).
(3) RvW is probably gone imminently, either by being directly overturned (which I prefer from an intellectual honesty perspective) or through silly games where they overturn it while pretending not to (probably the politically smarter path). Previously that didn't happen because the public opinion backlash would have knocked Rs out of office. Currently I think the R party is comfortable being politically unpopular overall, playing to its base, and instead relying on mechanisms like voting restrictions, gerrymandering, small state structural biases, and procedural gamesmanship to try to keep control of an unconsenting nation, so I think now is when conservative SCOTUS makes its move on RvW. (And if any Rs aren't comfortable with that, too late to change the approach, that ship has sailed.) No crystal ball here, just predicting.

Instead of overturning Roe V Wade conservative states are all out assaulting abortion rights. So when anyone in that state challenges the law, the Supreme Court sides with the state. So they don't have to ban it nationally instead they'll just make it really hard to get at a state level. Which won't stop rich people from getting abortions they want. Just poor people.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Maybe in 20 you'll get over Trump's fair and square loss.

Maybe in 20 he'll have one.

 

[Michael1985]

Maybe in 20 you'll get over Trump's fair and square loss.

Oh, I believe totally he lost. I've never been a Trump supporter. I spent four years referring to him as the "orange buffoon in the White House".

 

[ummmmmm]

Instead of overturning Roe V Wade conservative states are all out assaulting abortion rights. So when anyone in that state challenges the law, the Supreme Court sides with the state. So they don't have to ban it nationally instead they'll just make it really hard to get at a state level. Which won't stop rich people from getting abortions they want. Just poor people.

Background: I am *not* an expert on this. Pretty confident what I think of RvW, constitutionally and as a policy matter, but as to laws that have been passed since, I follow very little.

That said, the point of RvW was to prevent the states from deciding for themselves, and the immediate goal of overturning it would be to let states decide for themselves. (Not saying conservatives wouldn't then want to prevent states from making any decision they don't like, just as liberals wanted and enshrined in law in the opposite direction.) And I think letting states decide is the right result on this issue, even if (i.e., even though) rich people can still opt out of their home state's laws via money.

 

[ummmmmm]

Your guy lost fair and square. It was some twenty years ago. It's beyond time you got over it and moved on with your life.

I think Rs slapped on "Sore Loserman" bumper stickers about a minute after SCOTUS gave them the white house. Pretty sure a year later Dems were not still denying the outcome and demanding partisan recounts (after literally dozens of courts and same-party election officials told them they were full of ****). Seems there are two standards.

 

[Michael1985]

I think Rs slapped on "Sore Loserman" bumper stickers about a minute after SCOTUS gave them the white house. Pretty sure a year later Dems were not still denying the outcome and demanding partisan recounts (after literally dozens of courts and same-party election officials told them they were full of ****). Seems there are two standards.

Despite what Gore claimed, I have never believed what he said of wanting "every vote counted". There is no question in my mind that all he wanted was to count the votes over and over and over again in Florida until it produced a vote count in that state that showed him as the winner. Likewise, there is no reason for Trump to demand recount after recount and audit after audit of so many different states unless he's desperate to do anything to cling to power when the math just isn't there. I'd like to say it's every bit as asinine as the stunt the Gore campaign team tried to pull twenty years ago, but the sad reality is that he seems desperate to flip one state, any state, and the EC college result would still have Biden as the winner,, so what Trump's doing is even more pathetic. I'd like to hope that someday he'd finally come to terms with the fact that the American people didn't want him to be their president after 2020, but I very much doubt it.

 

[sealybobo]

Background: I am *not* an expert on this. Pretty confident what I think of RvW, constitutionally and as a policy matter, but as to laws that have been passed since, I follow very little.

That said, the point of RvW was to prevent the states from deciding for themselves, and the immediate goal of overturning it would be to let states decide for themselves. (Not saying conservatives wouldn't then want to prevent states from making any decision they don't like, just as liberals wanted and enshrined in law in the opposite direction.) And I think letting states decide is the right result on this issue, even if (i.e., even though) rich people can still opt out of their home state's laws via money.

A lot of young women just take the morning after pill now. If they have unprotected sex or the condom breaks.

 

[sealybobo]

Despite what Gore claimed, I have never believed what he said of wanting "every vote counted". There is no question in my mind that all he wanted was to count the votes over and over and over again in Florida until it produced a vote count in that state that showed him as the winner. Likewise, there is no reason for Trump to demand recount after recount and audit after audit of so many different states unless he's desperate to do anything to cling to power when the math just isn't there. I'd like to say it's every bit as asinine as the stunt the Gore campaign team tried to pull twenty years ago, but the sad reality is that he seems desperate to flip one state, any state, and the EC college result would still have Biden as the winner,, so what Trump's doing is even more pathetic. I'd like to hope that someday he'd finally come to terms with the fact that the American people didn't want him to be their president after 2020, but I very much doubt it.

A lot of people looked into the Florida vote in 2000. If you counted all the votes, including the ones tossed because of Hanging Chads, Gore won Florida. They did so many shady things in Florida. But ultimately, the Brooks Brother Riot ended the recount. Yes that's right, 2020 wasn't the first time Republicans rioted because they didn't like the election results. So then it went to the Supreme Court and they decided who our president would be in 2000. Not Florida voters. Sad but true.

Some say Bush would have won but that's bullshit. Jeb and Katherine Harris and

Theresa LePore - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I find this very interesting.

In 1996 LePore changed her political party registration to Democratic after deciding to run for the position of Supervisor of Elections.

She designed the infamous "butterfly ballot" used in the 2000 presidential election.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, duh, that'd exclude 30% of the Dem base, easily.

Why is what I wrote funny? In 2000 they were counting up all the votes. Republicans sent operatives down including Roger Stone to start a riot and cause so much havoc that it forced the recount to stop and it got sent to the Supreme Court. True or not?

So this year Trump and his cronies tried to get a bunch of nuts to go down and stop Congress from certifying Biden as the next POTUS. I believe Trump wanted the Supreme Court to decide. Or some weird rule where it could go to the House of Representatives and each state would get 1 vote. Trump tried to pull a fast one but not enough Republicans went along. Like Pence.

 

[Oddball]

When you have "republicans" like Warren, O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts, who needs democrats?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is what I wrote funny? In 2000 they were counting up all the votes.

You think Gore wanted to recount all the votes? That's funny.

 

[sealybobo]

You think Gore wanted to recount all the votes? That's funny.

Yes it's a fact.

If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.

But if the recount had been conducted under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states now are adopting -- rules aimed at recording the intentions of as many voters as possible -- Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found.

The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for George W. Bush -- but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes. As a result, under rules devised by the Florida Supreme Court and accepted by the Gore campaign at the time, Bush probably would have won a recount, the study found.

And don't forget the woman who devised the butterfly ballots was a Republican but then suddenly in 1996 she changed over to Democrat and was in charge of the election? Shady as fuck. Especially when you know that Catherine Harris purposely went with really thin paper ballots that they knew would cause hanging chads. Then they went to the black neighborhoods and threw out all the votes that had hanging chads.

YOU think 2020 was stolen? All 5 states? It's very clear and obvious the many ways Republicans stole Florida in 2000 including hacked Diebold voting machines. You didn't care back then but boy do you believe Dominion cheated, when they didn't. A lot of shady shit happened with those Diebold machines though.

So there are 4 ways Republicans stole 2000. The final tactic was the Brooks Brother Riots. Just like Trump's failed attempt to stop the election results from happening in 2020.

Now explain how 5 states stole the election for Biden. A lot harder to steal 5 states than 1.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes it's a fact.

If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.

But if the recount had been conducted under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states now are adopting -- rules aimed at recording the intentions of as many voters as possible -- Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found.

The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for George W. Bush -- but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes. As a result, under rules devised by the Florida Supreme Court and accepted by the Gore campaign at the time, Bush probably would have won a recount, the study found.

And don't forget the woman who devised the butterfly ballots was a Republican but then suddenly in 1996 she changed over to Democrat and was in charge of the election? Shady as fuck. Especially when you know that Catherine Harris purposely went with really thin paper ballots that they knew would cause hanging chads. Then they went to the black neighborhoods and threw out all the votes that had hanging chads.

YOU think 2020 was stolen? All 5 states? It's very clear and obvious the many ways Republicans stole Florida in 2000 including hacked Diebold voting machines. You didn't care back then but boy do you believe Dominion cheated, when they didn't. A lot of shady shit happened with those Diebold machines though.

So there are 4 ways Republicans stole 2000. The final tactic was the Brooks Brother Riots. Just like Trump's failed attempt to stop the election results from happening in 2020.

Now explain how 5 states stole the election for Biden. A lot harder to steal 5 states than 1.

Yes it's a fact.

You're confused. Gore never asked for a state-wide recount.