General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

I could list the states that ban felons from voting, and draw the opposite but parallel conclusion.
Why is that?
Why those states?
This is not rhetorical, there is an answer.

 

They have a reason for everything

But think just for one moment what you are arguing for -- leaving the names of the dead on the voter rolls

 

And this list has the superior position.

Many humans cannot vote. Children, for example -- do you argue against this? Arent they citizens? The children (or most of them) have not even committed felonies. My guess is that if Democrats could be certain children would vote for them, they would be for this too.

Nor do we let mentally incompetent persons vote. Against this too?

Non-citizens cannot legally vote either -- which basically brings us back to where we started. If you think people who snuck into this country illegally should be voting, then say so. At least let everyone know where you stand. Be loud and proud.

Back to felons. The adult position on felons voting is that we do not let criminals and the morally corrupt decide elections for the rest of us. Instead we set an objective, minimum level of human responsibility that must be met. Is this really too much for you? We requite some degree of trustworthiness, loyalty and respect for law be met before someone can participate in the American form of self-government. States that do not let felons vote understand this.

I would suggest that the states that do let felons vote understand this too, but choose to ignore it. Why? They have a single focus. The desire for political power and control overcomes all reason and rationality.

 

If someone alive was actually removed they could get that changed easily.
NJ
Do you have a site showing actual Cases?

 

This is generally consistent with what I remember. The right accused ACORN of massive, coordinated fraud, alleging that the fraud was coordinated by ACORN's leadership and involved all or most of its thousands of street-level employees. The entire ACORN model was put under a series of investigations all over the nation.

The investigations did not show any wrongdoing by the organization as a whole, nor by its senior leaders. The group's overall methodology survived scrutiny. A few dozen low-level employees were found to have committed wrongdoing, some quite serious and some piddly. Some of those individuals, iirc, were turned in by ACORN itself.

 

Children / incompetent people are deemed not to have the wherewithal to choose. I have no problem with this, so long as the cutoffs are reasonable.

I don't know of anyone who thinks illegal aliens should be allowed to vote while they have that status. That would be silly.

When, if ever, an illegal alien should be given citizenship is a harder question. I have no problem with denying citizenship to illegal immigrants, even if they are given permanent residency. The only exception I would consider making is people who came here illegally below a certain age (10? 14? 18?).

I could live with barring the "morally corrupt" from voting. But where we draw that line is the hard part. Perhaps violent felonies, and fraud/theft felonies? My real beef is denying the right to vote for people with felonies that don't show any level of moral corruption. Drug charges and gun-possession charges are the two examples that pop to mind.

 

Since the vast majority of people in prison on drug charges are there for Dealing I'd say that is moral corruption.

 

Your President for the next 21 days or so would tell you that the black ones are in prison mostly because of racism and oppression. He's pardoned over 1100 of them and I'm sure he'll want to finish his term with a grand flurry of beneficence.

 

This is why the line is drawn at felonies. The procedure and amount of effort involved to prove that level of crime is the best we are ever going to get. It's not perfect, but it's sufficient given the size of our society. Plus, its cost-efficient.

But, again, all of this gets back to the original question - why do states controlled by Democrats want the morally corrupt to be able to legally vote?

 

Some interesting election numbers
The standout being the improvement by Trump with Millennials vis-à-vis Romney in some of the key states

 

Something of a follow-up to the immediate post above. Ann Coulter foresaw much of what eventually happened back in Mar 2016. I think it's interesting to look back at who got things things right and who did not. An examination most of our media skips (for obvious reasons)
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-03-30.html

--------------------
"The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.

If there's still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it's with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.
*******

The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states......

Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama's white vote in other important swing states -- Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).

Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.

If Trump wins only the same states as Romney, but adds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois -- where Romney's white vote was below his national average -- Trump wins with 280 electoral votes. (Romney wasn't an ideal candidate in the industrial Midwest.)

Trump could lose any one of those states and make up for it by winning Minnesota and Wisconsin -- where Romney actually lost the white vote. Or he could lose two of those states but add victories in places outside the Rust Belt, where Romney's white vote was also below average, such as Colorado, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. (In 1992, Ross Perot came in second in Maine, beating George Bush.)

I haven't even mentioned Florida, where Trump recently trounced Stuart Stevens' dream candidate, Marco Rubio, a sitting senator -- and a Cuban! -- in a 20-point rout. Republican primary voters outnumbered Democratic primary voters in that election by more than half a million votes.

If Trump wins Florida, he needs to win only two or three of the 10 states where Romney either lost the white vote outright or won a smaller percentage of it than he did nationally. ....."

 

Your President for the next 21 days or so would tell you they are in prison mostly because of racism. He's pardoned over 1100 of them and I'm sure he'll want to finish his term with a grand flurry.

 

Ohhh that look -- lol
What a great year -- 2016

 

Charlie Sheen doesn't represent all "liberals" any more than Ted Nugent represents all "conservatives". I'm not sure anyone would want to be represented by that womanizing coke-head.

 

Let's keep this real SH.

Ted Nuggent (as crazy as he is)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over any Liberal Hollywood elitist.

 

Right. I'd expect you to say that. They are all crazy to me.

 

Nugent isn't a drug addict and doesn't get himself into trouble with the law, and he can play guitar. However, I do get amused when I see old lady Republican activists talking about what a great conservative he is. I feel like asking, "are you ladies familiar with the lyrics of Wang Dang Sweet Pointing?" I'm too much of a gentleman to actually ask that, but I do wonder.

 

Maserati, Maserati

 

(a) What do you have against Nugent? Did a cat scratch you? And now a fever?
(b) You didnt answer the actual question posed (again).

 

You're expecting an answer to a rhetorical question? Did CNN go 24/7 with this? I think you give too much credit to Charlie Sheen. Does anyone really care what a coke-head actor says? Well, clearly some conservatives do.

 

I saw this earlier, thought it was fake. But apparently it wasn't. If it is, then its pretty elaborate

CNN, so far, still refusing to cover it -- 6 folks kidnap and beat a Trump supporter -- "f**k white people," "f**k Trump" -- some are saying they skinned his head to the bone. All for being a Trump supporter.

 

So, youre not going to answer?

 

Bad story gets worse - the victim is special needs

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/01...-alleged-kidnapping-torture-is-live-streamed/

This is a natural result to expect from the constant anti-white agenda we see among elite media -- whether its newspapers, or cable news, or movies, or network TV, or cable TV, or much of publishing/literature. or just about any college campus today. A chunk of our society has been brainwashed to think violence against whites is perfectly acceptable.

The aggressors are BLM supporters. Surprised?

Obama's America

 

ahem .....

 

Such a fraud -- both she and Bernie disappoint

 

Did Jill Stein personally get this money or her campaign? Reading that article one could be left with the impression that Stein's personal wealth benefited from Wisconsin and Michigan returning unspent monies from the recount. Everyone knew this was a fundraising ploy for the Green Party.

 

The money is not going to Stein, nor is it going to her campaign. The article says that she is directing the money towards voter-integrity efforts.

Stein raised money to challenge the election on grounds that the results were tainted. The challenge was ******** and failed for good reason, but donors' ostensible intent was to support voter integrity. Diverting the remaining funds to another aspect of voter integrity makes sense.

In fact, this was probably her only legal option. When funds are donated to a charitable cause, the charity is obligated to use the funds for the donated purpose. If the donated purpose becomes moot, then the charity is obligated to redirect the funds to a related charitable purpose. Thus, for example, when a disease is cured, any left-over research funds are diverted towards research of a different disease.