"I'm pissed that the Democratic Socialists (or anyone for that matter) is taking advantage of our system."
From what I read on that website, they weren't talking about bringing in voters from out of state or breaking the law. That was an assumption on the Republican's part. They jumped all over it. It was a poorly worded announcement on a website and it's gone. I don't know what you know about this outfit or what sort of resources they have at hand, but even if your assumptions are correct I doubt they would have even close to what's needed to influence an election.
The Republicans don't know if they are going to hold on to Congress, so they're setting the stage to blame somebody. No one has even voted yet, forgodsake and I'm sure they have a brigade of lawyers around the country ready to contest close elections.
"I'm not sure what you mean by more adherant to party line, but I think the answer to whatever you're trying to say is yes. If you could clarify your question I'd gladly confirm that, Rick. "
I think you got the idea. Why is it that more seasoned and skilled voters tend to stick to one party when they vote? Seems to me, they know that's how their vote has power.
"Maybe you could reduce your insult ratio below 50% too. Maybe not."
I thought that would be a compliment to you. I figured out-there free thinking is how you saw yourself.
"Has there ever been a reasoned debate where "falderal and piffle" were an appropriate and productive contribution to the dialogue? "
Beats cussin' And I couldn't think of a better way to respond to a remark by you that wasn''t very appropriate or productive either.
Why is it that more seasoned and skilled voters tend to stick to one party when they vote?
You'd have to ask them, but I can posit a number of reasons:
They've spent a lot more time being brainwashed by one or another party machine (and the news media)
They grew up in a time when the main third party choices of today did not exist (thus, unfamiliarity)
They have had much longer to get caught up in the web of power struggles which we call "bipartisanship". They have spent a lifetime being sold on the idea that fate is decided based on whether their party or the other party is in power.
They have a much bigger, longer financial and emotional investment in programs which the Bipartisans support
Seems to me, they know that's how their vote has power.
Show me a survey that shows that older people-- or any age group --really thinks "their vote has power".
The survey found that young, middle-aged and older people were similar in their mistrust of the government, with roughly equal percentages of each group believing that most politicians were crooks and that people like themselves had little say in government.
It doesn't say what the percentages were, but it does seem to indicate that getting older does not lead one to an increasing sense that one's vote has power.
BTW, I think more experienced voters can be said to be more skilled in some ways, but skill as a voter involves a lot more than just experience.
"The survey found that young, middle-aged and older people were similar in their mistrust of the government, with roughly equal percentages of each group believing that most politicians were crooks and that people like themselves had little say in government."
I can posit several reasons off the top of my head:
-- They've spent a lot more time being brainwashed by third party malcontents. and the news media.
-- They're looking for a reason for their general disinterest and disengagement and the "they're all crooks" argument is the handiest one. They have probably never even attempted to work with government, or else they woud find out you can get things done.
-- They expect government to do something for them that they're not getting themselves.
-- They were drunk or stoned when the survey caller reached them
DFLers were concerned about the instructions that tell voters to "put an 'X' in the square opposite the name of each candidate you wish to vote for." They thought it might cause voters to vote for more than one candidate.
And the first lawsuit is in. Apparently the DFL isn't too busy to file lawsuits.
DFL sues over plans for handling absentee ballots THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Â Â
ST. PAUL The state Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party sued today over the way absentee ballots will be handled in the U.S. Senate race. Â Â
Minnesota Public Radio reported that the lawsuit was filed with the state Supreme Court.
Attorney General Mike Hatch, a Democrat, and Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, a Republican, both say that county auditors must continue to distribute absentee ballots, even though they still bear the name of Sen. Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash Friday.
But votes for Wellstone won't count for his ballot successor, which the party will nominate on Wednesday.
DFL attorney Alan Weinblatt told MPR that the party's lawsuit argues that people who voted absentee should be able to get a new ballot under the state's spoiled ballot provision.
"Folks like that are being told you're out of luck," Weinblatt said. "That's not what we do in Minnesota."
Party officials and Weinblatt didn't immediately return calls from The Associated Press.
Hatch hadn't immediately seen the lawsuit, but told MPR his staff had examined the spoiled ballot provision and didn't think it covered the Wellstone situation.
Former Vice President and senator Walter Mondale was widely expected to enter the race Wednesday in Wellstone's place, opposing Republican Norm Coleman. The race is seen as critical in control of the U.S. Senate.
Almost 41/2 percent of those voting voted absentee in 1998, the last non-presidential election year.
From what Hatch and Kiffmeyer are saying it sounds like people who haven't sent in their absentee ballots can write in whoever the "mystery" candidate is when the DFL announces it. If they haven't already mailed the ballot.
If they have mailed the ballot already they may pick up a supplemental ballot at the county auditor's office or their polling place. The only people who are not going to be able to cast a new absentee vote for Senator are people who already mailed their ballot in and cannot get that supplement. Hatch & Kiffmeyer also said that election officials would be responsible for getting those supplemental ballots to nursing homes etc. where there is a large concentration of people who would have a tough time getting out and about. So it sounds like very few absentee votes will be lost altogether.
On the other thread you said
I called this morning and they said they would send me an absentee ballot, within 10 days, and they said that the votes would count n the new ballots only.
Well I hope it's in less than 10 because the election is in a week. So if I'm reading your post correctly you hadn't yet requested one right ? So when you get the ballot I'm assming Wellstone's name is on it and then you write the DFL candidate (whomever it is) name in correct ? Or are you getting a supplement ?
The law is being followed and both parties representatives (Hatch, Kiffmeyer) seem to have agreed that the law is being followed.
I agree with you on the PR standpoint but, it screws the voters over.
I just hope it pans out ok or we're gonna have a hell of a mess to clean up. There's already talk of "Florida" and there's the lawsuit on the part of the DFL.
Excellent article regarding the North Korea threat. I don't know the author (linked from Drudge) but one of the most interesting I've come across lately.
North Korea – Our greatest threat is east of Middle East
North Korea ..... has something far more                   deadly: nothing to lose. Its people are starving,                   it has suffered almost as many mass defections                   in the past decade than in the 30 previous years                   combined, it continuously breaks every treaty,                   promise and pact it makes in exchange for aid, it                   is woefully backward and technologically                   retarded. And to add insult to injury, just                   beyond the 38th parallel, its brother under a free                   republic is thriving like no other.
fold, you are the only one that makes any attempt to insult me. I get along fairly well with most of the people here most of the time. So I enjoy a little controversy and confrontation once in awhile, so what? You should know by now that is the only reason I give you the time of day, screwball.
Apparently, fold, you have no clue what it is that the Minnesota Supreme Court did. If they sent your out a couple of days ago it will still have Wellstone's name on it. Of course, you can write in Mondale if you so choose. Being a democratic zealot I wouldn't expect anything else. The new ballots won't go out until at least today. My understanding, from the news accounts, is that the absentees must be in by Tuesday. If that is correct the Court's decision will little or no effect on the election.
The question however, shouldn't be one of fair or unfair. It should be about following the law. Democrats just can't do that.
One of the things I've taken greater notice of in reading articles, editorials or hearing in other media outlets is that too many people in my opinion have no idea why they are voting for a person or what they are about. They seem to vote for the candidate that has the most charisma. It's not a new phenomenon but It seems to me that so many people who do vote are so uninformed you have to wonder why.
I would say most of the people here are involved and have a good knowledge of candidates. I think it's sad that some that do even bother to vote are so out of it when it comes to current events or politics. It's amazing how many don't even watch the news and read only the comics and sports section. It's not limited to any one party either.
I was watching a show the other night and they did a "Jay walking" type of scenario where they interviewed people on the street who said they were voting, they were then asked why they were voting for a particular person and most really couldn't come up with much other than. He seems like a nice guy, or he seems like he cares etc. They asked specifically questions like do you know where your candidate stands on ______Fill in the blank. Most had no idea. It just seems sad that people don't take more time to learn about people shaping policy.
With the media we have today image is such a huge part of it. I doubt Lincoln would have gotten elected in todays society because of his looks alone even though he was a great leader. Voter turnout nation wide is supposed to be really low this year. How sad at a time when our freedoms are under attack that we would take them for granted.
The question is, how do we encourage people to learn more and become engaged ?
5{n is, how do we encourage people to learn more and become engaged ?"
Good to see a conservative interested in voter participation. Mostly, they don't care about how many people are involved and low voter turnout is fine with them.
I think they have the perception that high voter turnouts tend to turn against them.
I wouldn't want anyone to be fined for not voting. No one should be required to vote, fly the flag, say the pledge of allegance or anything like that.
I would entertain the idea of opening up voting over a weekend though. I think that would get people involved. Though I think there is no excuse for not voting. And I think anyone who doesn't vote has zero credability with me if they complain about what the government is doing.
They asked specifically questions like do you know where your candidate stands on ______Fill in the blank. Most had no idea. It just seems sad that people don't take more time to learn about people shaping policy.
Maybe it's because they realize that the decisions of politicians have a lot less positive impact on their daily lives than their own decisions do. And most people either find the negative impact of politicians' decisions on their lives to be tolerable, or they don't know enough to realize what that negative impact is, or they don't think there's a real way to stop that impact from happening-- which there isn't, in the world of "bipartisanship".
The question is, how do we encourage people to learn more and become engaged ?
We could shift the responsibilities which have been taken away from them back to them. If people have to make their own decisions about things which affect their safety, health, livelihood, etc., they'll learn and become engaged. If decisions and actions were allowed to be made, and have consequences (rather than bubble-wrapping society in protective layers of regulations), people would become more responsible (which involves learning more and becoming engaged).
If Mondale seems to slip in the polls or after the debate, perhaps he can withdraw and be replaced by someone else who has a better chance to win?? (i.e. like in NJ).
It's NEVER right! It doesn't matter who is doing it. I don't need to make a claim, they admitted it themselves. I believe the quote was something like "we can't run you in the white majority state of Minnesota".
Good to see a conservative interested in voter participation. Mostly, they don't care about how many people are involved and low voter turnout is fine with them.
Weren't you just chastizing CSC for generalizing ?
Where you get the idea that conservatives don't want high voter turnout is puzzling. Now where we might differ from liberals is that we actually want the people voting to live here as residents and not have their vote influenced by free cigs etc. I want as high of a turnout as others who would like to see it. You claim because we think there is more Dems than R's we want lower voter turnout. I don't believe that to be true, we are seeing more voters go Ind. and Green, The R's hold more seats in the House, The White House, and the Senate is split. The country seems right now to be 50/50.
Your idea on weekend voting would work well I think. What I wonder though is if it would really increase voting. People now have to be excused to vote from work and if people won't use that as motivation I don't know what will. If it was on a Sunday you'd have some guy sitting in his recliner going, hey, the Vikes are playing. It's an awesome privelege to vote and I would like to see higher tunouts and a better educated voting populace regardless of which way people sway, at least then we'd have more involvement in our government.
"I'm pissed that the Democratic Socialists (or anyone for that matter) is taking advantage of our system."
From what I read on that website, they weren't talking about bringing in voters from out of state or breaking the law. That was an assumption on the Republican's part. They jumped all over it. It was a poorly worded announcement on a website and it's gone. I don't know what you know about this outfit or what sort of resources they have at hand, but even if your assumptions are correct I doubt they would have even close to what's needed to influence an election.
The Republicans don't know if they are going to hold on to Congress, so they're setting the stage to blame somebody. No one has even voted yet, forgodsake and I'm sure they have a brigade of lawyers around the country ready to contest close elections.
.
Rick
"I'm not sure what you mean by more adherant to party line, but I think the answer to whatever you're trying to say is yes. If you could clarify your question I'd gladly confirm that, Rick. "
I think you got the idea. Why is it that more seasoned and skilled voters tend to stick to one party when they vote? Seems to me, they know that's how their vote has power.
"Maybe you could reduce your insult ratio below 50% too. Maybe not."
I thought that would be a compliment to you. I figured out-there free thinking is how you saw yourself.
"Has there ever been a reasoned debate where "falderal and piffle" were an appropriate and productive contribution to the dialogue? "
Beats cussin' And I couldn't think of a better way to respond to a remark by you that wasn''t very appropriate or productive either.
You're right, Rick. I don't think a small fringe group is going to affect the election much.
However, I don't like voter fraud committed by anyone. It takes our power as a citizens away from us.
I'd be just as pissed if it was the North Dakota Young Republicans trying to influence the race.
You know, I've never served on Jury duty.
You probably won't serve either, JT. If you do get called you'll be excused. You are much too educated for anyone to let you sit on a jury.
What do you mean by that, Jethro?
Unfortunaytely during jury selection both sides, whether intentional or not, throw out anyone with any intellegence.
I thought you were being a smart ass!
Me? A smart ass? Now what would ever give you that idea?!!!!
Me? A smart ass? Now what would ever give you that idea?!!!!
It speaks for itself.
:-)
No I haven't served on a jury. I have seen plenty of jury selections and I stand by what I said.
You'd have to ask them, but I can posit a number of reasons:
Show me a survey that shows that older people-- or any age group --really thinks "their vote has power".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53727-2002Oct19.html
The survey found that young, middle-aged and older people were similar in their mistrust of the government, with roughly equal percentages of each group believing that most politicians were crooks and that people like themselves had little say in government.
It doesn't say what the percentages were, but it does seem to indicate that getting older does not lead one to an increasing sense that one's vote has power.
BTW, I think more experienced voters can be said to be more skilled in some ways, but skill as a voter involves a lot more than just experience.
"The survey found that young, middle-aged and older people were similar in their mistrust of the government, with roughly equal percentages of each group believing that most politicians were crooks and that people like themselves had little say in government."
I can posit several reasons off the top of my head:
-- They've spent a lot more time being brainwashed by third party malcontents. and the news media.
-- They're looking for a reason for their general disinterest and disengagement and the "they're all crooks" argument is the handiest one. They have probably never even attempted to work with government, or else they woud find out you can get things done.
-- They expect government to do something for them that they're not getting themselves.
-- They were drunk or stoned when the survey caller reached them
Too stupid to vote:
http://www.kstp.com/article/view/52470/
DFLers were concerned about the instructions that tell voters to "put an 'X' in the square opposite the name of each candidate you wish to vote for." They thought it might cause voters to vote for more than one candidate.
And the first lawsuit is in. Apparently the DFL isn't too busy to file lawsuits.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/4396590.htm
Bill, I believe this applies to you.
From what Hatch and Kiffmeyer are saying it sounds like people who haven't sent in their absentee ballots can write in whoever the "mystery" candidate is when the DFL announces it. If they haven't already mailed the ballot.
If they have mailed the ballot already they may pick up a supplemental ballot at the county auditor's office or their polling place. The only people who are not going to be able to cast a new absentee vote for Senator are people who already mailed their ballot in and cannot get that supplement. Hatch & Kiffmeyer also said that election officials would be responsible for getting those supplemental ballots to nursing homes etc. where there is a large concentration of people who would have a tough time getting out and about. So it sounds like very few absentee votes will be lost altogether.
On the other thread you said
Well I hope it's in less than 10 because the election is in a week. So if I'm reading your post correctly you hadn't yet requested one right ? So when you get the ballot I'm assming Wellstone's name is on it and then you write the DFL candidate (whomever it is) name in correct ? Or are you getting a supplement ?
The law is being followed and both parties representatives (Hatch, Kiffmeyer) seem to have agreed that the law is being followed.
DFL sues over plans for handling absentee ballots THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
I wonder if they're still invited to the memorial tonight?
....and that the new ballots weren't even "available" yet.
That's because the DFL won't choose a candidate.
I'm gonna go ahead and say it, they should have gotten their asses in gear and made a formal decision because we all know it's already been made.
So there you have that. How "Fair" it comes out will only be seen once it is over.
Hey, call the DFL. They're the ones holding it back. I'm not trying to be an insensative prick or anything but it's the truth.
I agree with you on the PR standpoint but, it screws the voters over.
I just hope it pans out ok or we're gonna have a hell of a mess to clean up. There's already talk of "Florida" and there's the lawsuit on the part of the DFL.
Yeah, "Law And Order" is a good place to PLAY lawyer, isn't it?
fold, every time you touch this subject you make an ass out of yourself.
Trying, JT? I thought you had that mastered? HA
I don't know if I should laugh at that or be pissed!
:-)
You do a wonderful job of making an ass of yourself, fold. You should win a prize.
Excellent article regarding the North Korea threat. I don't know the author (linked from Drudge) but one of the most interesting I've come across lately.
North Korea – Our greatest threat is east of Middle East
North Korea ..... has something far more
                  deadly: nothing to lose. Its people are starving,
                  it has suffered almost as many mass defections
                  in the past decade than in the 30 previous years
                  combined, it continuously breaks every treaty,
                  promise and pact it makes in exchange for aid, it
                  is woefully backward and technologically
                  retarded. And to add insult to injury, just
                  beyond the 38th parallel, its brother under a free
                  republic is thriving like no other.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29443
Jethro... Nobody Cares What You Say.
Apparently YOU do. You keep responding just like Pavlov's dog.
fold, you are the only one that makes any attempt to insult me. I get along fairly well with most of the people here most of the time. So I enjoy a little controversy and confrontation once in awhile, so what? You should know by now that is the only reason I give you the time of day, screwball.
Liberals, you just gotta laugh!: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,68658,00.html
Oh my God!
How can they argue such stupidity with a straight face?
Shakes head in amazement.
Apparently, fold, you have no clue what it is that the Minnesota Supreme Court did. If they sent your out a couple of days ago it will still have Wellstone's name on it. Of course, you can write in Mondale if you so choose. Being a democratic zealot I wouldn't expect anything else. The new ballots won't go out until at least today. My understanding, from the news accounts, is that the absentees must be in by Tuesday. If that is correct the Court's decision will little or no effect on the election.
The question however, shouldn't be one of fair or unfair. It should be about following the law. Democrats just can't do that.
Democrats: dishonest to the core!: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20021101.shtml
One of the things I've taken greater notice of in reading articles, editorials or hearing in other media outlets is that too many people in my opinion have no idea why they are voting for a person or what they are about. They seem to vote for the candidate that has the most charisma. It's not a new phenomenon but It seems to me that so many people who do vote are so uninformed you have to wonder why.
I would say most of the people here are involved and have a good knowledge of candidates. I think it's sad that some that do even bother to vote are so out of it when it comes to current events or politics. It's amazing how many don't even watch the news and read only the comics and sports section. It's not limited to any one party either.
I was watching a show the other night and they did a "Jay walking" type of scenario where they interviewed people on the street who said they were voting, they were then asked why they were voting for a particular person and most really couldn't come up with much other than. He seems like a nice guy, or he seems like he cares etc. They asked specifically questions like do you know where your candidate stands on ______Fill in the blank. Most had no idea. It just seems sad that people don't take more time to learn about people shaping policy.
With the media we have today image is such a huge part of it. I doubt Lincoln would have gotten elected in todays society because of his looks alone even though he was a great leader.
Voter turnout nation wide is supposed to be really low this year. How sad at a time when our freedoms are under attack that we would take them for granted.
The question is, how do we encourage people to learn more and become engaged ?
O/K end of rant, thanks.
The question is, how do we encourage people to learn more and become engaged ?
Scribe had an interesting class the other day. Some people suggested that voters be required to vote, or be penalized. Such as a $150.00 fine.
I thought "You can't force someone to vote". Isn't it their right to not partake in an election?
5{n is, how do we encourage people to learn more and become engaged ?"
Good to see a conservative interested in voter participation. Mostly, they don't care about how many people are involved and low voter turnout is fine with them.
I think they have the perception that high voter turnouts tend to turn against them.
I wouldn't want anyone to be fined for not voting. No one should be required to vote, fly the flag, say the pledge of allegance or anything like that.
I would entertain the idea of opening up voting over a weekend though. I think that would get people involved. Though I think there is no excuse for not voting. And I think anyone who doesn't vote has zero credability with me if they complain about what the government is doing.
I would entertain the idea of opening up voting over a weekend though.........
I think that's a great idea. I can't think of any drawbacks.
I agree there's no reason not to vote but I know a lot of people only vote during Presidential elections.
"I would entertain the idea of opening up voting over a weekend though"
Then we couldn't drink on Saturday. )-; What are you thinking man?
They still close down bars and liquor stores during polling times don't they? I can't remember.
"And I think anyone who doesn't vote has zero credibility with me if they complain about what the government is doing"
Here, here. That's one reason why I do vote, so I do get the privilege to bitch about the government.
That's one reason why I do vote, so I do get the privilege to bitch about the government.
That's the best reason.
LOL! You bet
"They still close down bars and liquor stores during polling times don't they? I can't remember."
None where I bend an elbow.
I didn't know they ever did that. Of course I've never been out at the bar on election day so I wouldn't have even noticed.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just never happened.
Maybe it's because they realize that the decisions of politicians have a lot less positive impact on their daily lives than their own decisions do. And most people either find the negative impact of politicians' decisions on their lives to be tolerable, or they don't know enough to realize what that negative impact is, or they don't think there's a real way to stop that impact from happening-- which there isn't, in the world of "bipartisanship".
We could shift the responsibilities which have been taken away from them back to them. If people have to make their own decisions about things which affect their safety, health, livelihood, etc., they'll learn and become engaged. If decisions and actions were allowed to be made, and have consequences (rather than bubble-wrapping society in protective layers of regulations), people would become more responsible (which involves learning more and becoming engaged).
If Mondale seems to slip in the polls or after the debate, perhaps he can withdraw and be replaced by someone else who has a better chance to win?? (i.e. like in NJ).
Mondale's their best chance. If he can't do it, no DFL'er can.
if Alan Page had decided to run, it would have been a Slam Dunk, for HIM.
You really think so? Then why didn't they go with Page?
Because they are racist.
You wouldn't want us to make claims like that about conservatives and Republicans, would you CSC?
Why do you think it's all right for you to do it.?
Page has already said that Novak's column was out of bounds.
Dont' you believe him? Do you think he's a liar?
It's NEVER right! It doesn't matter who is doing it. I don't need to make a claim, they admitted it themselves. I believe the quote was something like "we can't run you in the white majority state of Minnesota".
Then stop spreading falsehoods. It starts with you.
Why dont you read what Page has to say
That's not going to stop CSC from namecalling. He's on one of the nastiest partisan tears I've seen here in awhile.
Rick,
Weren't you just chastizing CSC for generalizing ?
Where you get the idea that conservatives don't want high voter turnout is puzzling. Now where we might differ from liberals is that we actually want the people voting to live here as residents and not have their vote influenced by free cigs etc. I want as high of a turnout as others who would like to see it. You claim because we think there is more Dems than R's we want lower voter turnout. I don't believe that to be true, we are seeing more voters go Ind. and Green, The R's hold more seats in the House, The White House, and the Senate is split. The country seems right now to be 50/50.
Your idea on weekend voting would work well I think. What I wonder though is if it would really increase voting. People now have to be excused to vote from work and if people won't use that as motivation I don't know what will. If it was on a Sunday you'd have some guy sitting in his recliner going, hey, the Vikes are playing. It's an awesome privelege to vote and I would like to see higher tunouts and a better educated voting populace regardless of which way people sway, at least then we'd have more involvement in our government.