Butthole Bandits 7 and a throwback to Jim Crowe

[Major Robert Dump]

Foul language. Please someone care to debunk this? A Student ID and a Gov't ID Card don't work without an address? For realz??

[Strike For The South]

As a white man with a license, I don't care

[Major Robert Dump]

Yeah but Sara Silverman is hot. I would like to commit fraud in her polling booth, if you know what I mean

[Strike For The South]

Can I keep an eye open?

[Major Robert Dump]

Totally up to her, just watch out for hanging chads

[Lemur]

Meanwhile ...



[A] criminal election fraud complaint has now reportedly been filed with law enforcement in the state of Florida against a Republican firm, owned by a paid Mitt Romney consultant, which was hired by the GOP to carry out partisan voter registration operations in at least five battleground states.

Millions of dollars were spent on the aborted effort by the GOP over the last two months --- their largest single expenditure in several of the states where the scheme was in full tilt --- to seek out Romney supporters only, and sign them up to vote.

The strategy resulted in (or included) fraudulent registration forms collected by the firm and then submitted in Florida by the state GOP with voter addresses, signatures and party affiliations changed. Election officials in the state have told The BRAD BLOG that they fear the scheme could result in the disenfranchisement of a still-unknown number of otherwise legal voters, and they are taking extraordinary measures to try and contain the potential damage as they attempt to work through more than 45,000 new and updated registrations submitted by the GOP and verify their legitimacy.

The fraudulent voter registration forms have so far been discovered in "at least 11" FL counties at this hour, all submitted by the state Republican Party and collected by the RNC's top voter registration firm, a shell company formed in June called Strategic Allied Consulting, as owned by a notorious GOP operative named Nathan Sproul.

On Thursday night, the RNC finally fired the firm which they'd paid more than $3 million dollars over the past two months alone, for voter registration work in at least five key battleground states, and "Get Out the Vote" efforts in at least two more. [...]

FOX31 in Denver "confirmed that the young woman seen registering voters outside a Colorado Springs grocery store in a YouTube video, in which she admits to trying to only register voters who support Mitt Romney, was indeed a contract employee of Sproul's company."

FOX31 goes on to quote Miller telling them that "We are not aware of any voter registration irregularities from our efforts to register voters."

The local news outlet then wisely adds: "Of course, the state has little way of knowing if some registration forms were filled out and then discarded."

[Papewaio]

Meh we have the AEC here which is a statuary body headed by a Federal Court judge (active or retired)

It's primary aim is:

"Maintain an impartial and independent electoral system for eligible voters through active electoral roll management, efficient delivery of polling services and targeted education and public awareness programs."

[Major Robert Dump]

She is a babe

[Lemur]

Meh we have the AEC here which is a statuary body headed by a Federal Court judge (active or retired)

But ... but ... FREEDOMS!

[Papewaio]

But ... but ... LIBERTY!

[Kralizec]

Is butthole bandits a real series?

Google it and it shows up third in the results. Or so I've heard.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't think so, I made it up. I was going to use some others, but it turned out they were all taken. I won't say the names because I don't want to get in trouble, but it's kind of funny when you think of a phonetically catchy phrase for an adult movie and then google it and see its already been done.

I think there is a gaming group called this. I have seen them on Steam.

What is discerning is that this thread shows on the first page of google.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Restricting voter turnout even more is a step backwards.

We need more people taking an active part in government(ie voting), not less. The great thing about democracy is that it is in the interest of people who believe themselves to be enlightened to make other people become enlightened, as all votes are equal(in principle, but different groups have different voter turnout, thus different power).

Really? It's in their interest to make everyone enlightened?

In any decent country the majority of people should have no need of paying attention to politics.

"Invested in the countries future"? That's a stupid standard. Singles, childless couples and people between the age of 16-25 are liable to pay taxes and have to obey the law and authorities like anyone else. That's the only justification you need for franchise.

Having the franchise isn't a right.

If my government ever decides that I can't be allowed to vote because I don't conform to some guy's idea of the "responsible citizen" and can't be trusted to support their idea of what's best for the country I will start burning things to the ground. If you don't treat me like a citizen with rights I will not behave like one.

You make my argument for me

I would give up my vote in a second for a system that did a better job of electing good people. Even if you don't think my suggestion is any good, surely you can agree with that?

If you lived in a country like greece or something that was ruining itself, and there was a method of restricting the franchise that would improve things, wouldn't you be for it (assuming it was possible, this is like a thought experiment). Is voting that important to you?

A column? What is that, an extra half-vote per?

Sponsoring an ad? Intellectuals? Would solemn soliloquies by rarefied Ivory Tower types? .1 votes per ad, I'd bet.

So yes - cumulatively...

Eh, averages don't mean anything. Some do nothing, a few shift the whole campaign.

I was under the impression that you didn't credit notions of progress.

I don't credit the ideology of progress.

You're looking to reinstate the poll tax here. As I said, it clearly depends on one's position on the spectrum.

I'm not really conservative.

[Kralizec]

Having the franchise isn't a right.

It is under your law, under my law and several international treaties.

You make my argument for me

I would give up my vote in a second for a system that did a better job of electing good people. Even if you don't think my suggestion is any good, surely you can agree with that?

If you lived in a country like greece or something that was ruining itself, and there was a method of restricting the franchise that would improve things, wouldn't you be for it (assuming it was possible, this is like a thought experiment). Is voting that important to you?

That's an interesting dilemma - chosing between "the will of the people" and "good governance". I have some objections to your idea, principal and practical.

For the principal part: my right to vote is a key part of my identity as a citizen. If I don't get to vote in someone to represent me in the machinery of government, what reason do I have to give it my allegiance? Why should I obey its laws, when I think I can get away with it? Every regime on Earth has its supporters and oponents; what's special about democracy is that you can say: "I think this policy is bad, but the majority thinks it's good, and I'll have to accept that".

You could say that it's in my interest to obey the government because it knows best, and takes care of my interests as well. Which brings me to the practical objections. Short answer: I don't think that limited suffrage will produce better governance. People always take their self-interest into account, to varying degrees. Your idea of limiting suffrage to couples with kids: it's one thing, entirely legitimate, to ensure the interests of future generations are not harmed by short-sightedness. But not having kids is a legitimate choice, and sometimes not a choice, and people should not be penalised for it. People without children are still citizens and shouldn't be written off on the mere ground that they don't produce future citizens.

You said you don't trust yourself to vote on stuff like education on the grounds that you don't have kids. If you were Swiss this might be a concern. But you don't vote on these issues directly, you elect congressmen, governors and presidents to decide the totality of policies on your behalf.

[Montmorency]

I'm not really conservative.

Yes, you come off as a reactionary.

I would give up my vote in a second for a system that did a better job of electing good people. Even if you don't think my suggestion is any good, surely you can agree with that?

Sort of. I'd be willing to support political expediency and tactical application of social influence to the highest degree and at the highest level. Does that sound pleasing to you?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It is under your law, under my law and several international treaties.

Treaties, schmeaties. In a country that hasn't agreed to the treaties, and doesn't have the law, would you say they have no right to vote?

For the principal part: my right to vote is a key part of my identity as a citizen. If I don't get to vote in someone to represent me in the machinery of government, what reason do I have to give it my allegiance? Why should I obey its laws, when I think I can get away with it?

Why is part of your identity? Some countries ran for a long time on limited suffrage and people were happy with it. The expansion often had unforeseen and unfortunate effects.

You could say that it's in my interest to obey the government because it knows best, and takes care of my interests as well. Which brings me to the practical objections. Short answer: I don't think that limited suffrage will produce better governance. People always take their self-interest into account, to varying degrees. Your idea of limiting suffrage to couples with kids: it's one thing, entirely legitimate, to ensure the interests of future generations are not harmed by short-sightedness. But not having kids is a legitimate choice, and sometimes not a choice, and people should not be penalised for it. People without children are still citizens and shouldn't be written off on the mere ground that they don't produce future citizens.

But the point is not to treat the ability to vote as a reward to distribute to the most people, or to punish people by depriving it. The point is simply in the function: having the people as a check or influence on the government. And the right thing to do is to maximize their ability to carry out that function well.

Yes, you come off as a reactionary.

Strict conservatism doesn't work as a philosophy because the status quo always changes. The status quo changes, and it's conservative to oppose it, but after a couple generations the changed world the new status quo. Being reactionary is just looking at the past and saying "the conservatives back then had a point". There's nothing goofier than conservative republicans idolizing radicals like the Boston tea partiers just because they are traditional heroes.

Sort of. I'd be willing to support political expediency and tactical application of social influence to the highest degree and at the highest level. Does that sound pleasing to you?

I don't understand.

[Montmorency]

Strict conservatism doesn't work as a philosophy because the status quo always changes. The status quo changes, and it's conservative to oppose it, but after a couple generations the changed world the new status quo. Being reactionary is just looking at the past and saying "the conservatives back then had a point". There's nothing goofier than conservative republicans idolizing radicals like the Boston tea partiers just because they are traditional heroes.

A "yes" would have sufficed.

Why is part of your identity? Some countries ran for a long time on limited suffrage and people were happy with it. The expansion often had unforeseen and unfortunate effects.

Do you believe that there have been no desirable consequences, or that the bad ones outweigh the good ones?

I don't understand.

As Marx would have permitted the possession of petty property, so here would the exercise of petty liberties be permitted.

[Lemur]

And then we have things like this, seemingly well-documented.

A liberal group in New Mexico claims to have undercover video showing the vice chair of the Sandoval County Republican Party training poll challengers to use illegal tactics that could suppress voters’ rights. [...]

[F]ormer Republican Sandoval County Commission candidate Pat Morlen misinformed voters about ID requirements and assistance for Spanish-speaking citizens.

“At the request of two or more precinct board members of different political parties, a voter shall still present the required physical form of identification,” Morlen says in the video. [...]

The trainer also falsely claims that voters who changed their address but stayed in the same voting district should receive a provisional ballot and that no assistance would be provided to non-English speaking voters.

Morlen, who is now a tea party activist, later mocks disabled voters in New Mexico.

“In this state, if you’re in a coma [laughing] and your parent wants you to vote, they can vote for you,” she quips. “My own opinion is if the person can’t even say their name, at least their name, I don’t see why they should be voting.”

[Lemur]

Why are Democrat operatives trying to subvert the election process? Oh, wait ...

A campaign worker linked to a controversial Republican consulting firm has been arrested in Virginia and charged with throwing voter registration forms into a dumpster.

The suspect, Colin Small, 31, was described by a local law enforcement official as a "supervisor" in a Republican Party financed operation to register voters in Rockingham County in rural Virginia, a key swing state in the Nov. 6 election. He was arrested after a local business owner in the same Harrisonburg, Va., shopping center where the local GOP campaign headquarters is located spotted Small tossing a bag into the trash, according to a statement Thursday by the Rockingham County Sheriff’s office. The bag was later found to contain eight voter registration forms, it said. The arrest was reported Thursday night by WWBT-TV in Richmond.

... Move Along, Nothing to See Here, No Republican Would Mind if an Obama Relative Bought the Voting Machines for Swing States, and Anyone Who Says Different is a Conspiracy Nut ...

Tagg Romney, the son of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has purchased electronic voting machines that will be used in the 2012 elections in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington and Colorado.

"Late last month, Gerry Bello and Bob Fitrakis at FreePress.org broke the story of the Mitt Romney/Bain Capital investment team involved in H.I.G. Capital which, in July of 2011, completed a "strategic investment" to take over a fair share of the Austin-based e-voting machine company Hart Intercivic," according to independent journalist Brad Friedman.

But Friedman is not the only one to discover the connection between the Romney family, Bain Capital, and ownership of voting machines.

Truth out reports: "Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.

In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall's election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who "owns" the White House."

Both The Nation and New York Times confirm the connection between the Romney family, Solamere and the Bain Capital investment in the voting machine company, Hart Intercivic, whose board of directors serve H.I.G. Capital.

[rvg]

Tagg Romney, the son of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has purchased electronic voting machines that will be used in the 2012 elections in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington and Colorado.

Why isn't this front page news on every network?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

They invested a relatively small amount of money in H.I.G capital:

H.I.G. Capital – Private Equity – A $3.5 billion platform focusing on leveraged buyouts, management buyouts and leveraged recapitalizations of established and profitable manufacturing and service companies as well as growth capital investments in less mature companies.

Who owns part of the voter machine company. In no way shape or form is this Tagg Romney "buying voter machines".

This is low grade conspiracy theory stuff.

[Strike For The South]

BUT ROMNEY IS BUISNESS

HE HAS TO PLAY DIRTTY

[Strike For The South]

Its called a conflict of interest. Even a whiff of foul play should be scrutinized.

Shades of Diebold, i swear.

You know who also had a conflict of interest?
The founding fathers
Boom

[Sasaki Kojiro]

BUT ROMNEY IS BUISNESS

HE HAS TO PLAY DIRTTY

47% OF OHIO VOTERS HAVE PENSION FUNDS HANDLED BY THE X.Y.Z CAPITAL FUND

ROMNEY ALSO HAS INVESTMENTS IN THIS FUND, THEREFORE HE CONTROLS THEM

HE HAS BINDERS FULL OF THEIR NAMES

THE NEW YORK TIMES CONFIRMS that romney has investments

[Lemur]

Oh, and the Virginia DA is refusing to prosecute the fella who was caught dumping voter registrations. Lovely stuff.

As for the voting machines, and who sits on the boards of the private companies that manufacture and maintain them, I think this blogger summed it up well.

[W]e're reminded of the dangers of the privatization of our once-public electoral system. The company's ties to Romney aren't the only disturbing ones we've seen with similar companies over the years. The fact is, that nobody other than the public should have any sort of control of our elections. The proprietary voting systems now in use in all 50 states, whether owned by Romney associates, a George W. Bush associate (as with Diebold in 2004) or even a company tied to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez (as with Sequoia Voting Systems which blatantly lied about that tie to public officials, and the Canadian firm Dominion which purchased Sequoia and also immediately lied about the fact that Intellectual Property of their voting systems used all across the U.S. is still owned by the Venezuelan firm), continue to be a grave threat to American democracy and confidence in U.S. Elections.

[Major Robert Dump]

Please go back to paper voting.

There is no reason not to use paper voting.

I cannot take any argument about costs of paper voting seriously when Senators and Reps have staffs of 25 people, office budgets in the millions, and they sit on their asses all day and manage not to pass any laws. I cannot take talks of costs of paper voting seriously when we pay an illiterate guy in Afghanistan 7k USD to build some concrete steps from a porch to the sidewalk. I cannot take talks of costs of paper voting seriously when the fat lady at the Sam Houston dining facility who uses the clicker to do headcount for chow makes $20 an hour.

I mean, of all the things we should be willing to accept a higher cost for, one would think it would be to hold free and fair elections. I seem to recall something in a class once that said that stuff was important.

[Major Robert Dump]

That chick does not make 20/hour... You have to be lying. :-(

She makes 20 an hour.

[Strike For The South]

Please go back to paper voting.

There is no reason not to use paper voting.

I cannot take any argument about costs of paper voting seriously when Senators and Reps have staffs of 25 people, office budgets in the millions, and they sit on their asses all day and manage not to pass any laws. I cannot take talks of costs of paper voting seriously when we pay an illiterate guy in Afghanistan 7k USD to build some concrete steps from a porch to the sidewalk. I cannot take talks of costs of paper voting seriously when the fat lady at the Sam Houston dining facility who uses the clicker to do headcount for chow makes $20 an hour.

I mean, of all the things we should be willing to accept a higher cost for, one would think it would be to hold free and fair elections. I seem to recall something in a class once that said that stuff was important.

Then Romney would just buy paper, YOU FOOL

[Lemur]

Then Romney would just buy paper, YOU FOOL

Amusing, but you might want to have a serious think about the implications of private companies holding the keys to our voting process. Imagining plausible conflicts of interest will not strain your brain.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes, it is a conflict of interest and has the potential to lead to bad things, but MY GUY would never abuse the process.......
MY GUY resigned from the company before they got that golden contract that they did a crummy job contracting.....
MY GUY uses a blind trust, it's blind I swear, so MY GUY would never vote on an issue that affects his pocket book because MY GUY uses a blind trust, yeah....

In the 2nd debate the thing that really grated me was when Romney shot back at Obama over Chinese investments, and Obama's comeback was basically "well you have more than I do and I don't check mine as often as you do."

It's no longer a question of whose hand is in the cookie jar. Now we just argue who has more cookies