SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian reports:
Georgia secretary of state and gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp improperly purged more than 340,000 voters from the state's registration rolls, an investigation charges.
Greg Palast, a journalist and the director of the Palast Investigative Fund, said an analysis he commissioned found 340,134 voters were removed from the rolls on the grounds that they had moved - but they actually still live at the address where they are registered.
"Their registration is cancelled. Not pending, not inactive – cancelled. If they show up to vote on 6 November, they will not be allowed to vote. That's wrong," Palast told reporters on a call on Friday. "We can prove they're still there. They should be allowed to vote."
[...] Palast and the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda filed a lawsuit against Kemp on Friday to force him to release additional records related to the state's removal of voters.
Under Georgia procedures, registered voters who have not cast ballots for three years are sent a notice asking them to confirm they still live at their address. If they don't return it, they are marked inactive. If they don't vote for two more general elections after that, they are removed from the rolls.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @11:27PM (11 children)
I wasn't saying the DNC doesn't suffer similar problems, but the GOP is an order of magnitude worse for the country. They are actively destroying the country by extracting wealth for themselves. The same occurs with Dems in charge but to a much lesser degree, just look at the economic pattern if you want proof. I will 100% take the party that pretends to have ethics, at least occasionally some decent things are done. Being upfront about being evil fucks is not some badge of honor.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:29AM (3 children)
Clinton Foundation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday October 24 2018, @03:09AM (2 children)
Yes, what about the Clinton Foundation. You know, the charity that is highly rated for what it does and how it is run.
Unlike the Trump Foundation that has an actual documented history of illegal use.
Please take your dog whistles and go home.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:13AM (1 child)
You mean the Clinton Foundation Hillary feared would lose her the election over Uranium One? Y'know, the reason (according to leaked emails) Trump/Russia was concocted?. (BTW according to Politico many Mueller investigation now concede Trump/Russia doesn't threaten the Trump presidency). You mean the Clinton Foundation Huma Abedidin chastised Hillary for being too blatant? ie. Morroccan donations connected to access. The Clinton Foundation that insiders nicknamed "Clinton Incorporated" because of the wealth Bill was building through it? The Clinton Foundation that naive Chelsea Clinton suggested auditing - which then spurred Doug Brand to express concern, complaints and indignation, angrily calling her a "bratt" because she was "ruining everything". You mean THAT Clinton Foundation?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 24 2018, @03:01PM
But, didn't the Clinton Foundation "donate" many millions to Haiti? And, weren't most of those millions channeled into the pockets of loyal Hillary supporters? And, didn't they do Haiti a helluva lot of good? I mean - they DID get one new school house, didn't they? Geez, Louise - it takes a lot of millions to move one whole school house all the way to Haiti. Never mind that the same school somewhere in the Old South of the United States would probably be valued at a couple hundred thousand dollars. It might be valued at half a million further north in the United States. In most of the US, the damned thing would be torn down to make way for a real school house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @03:11AM (6 children)
What we're really getting is 'good cop/bad cop'. Sorry pal, we're done with the 'lesser evil' shtick. That's what got us here to begin with.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @03:38AM (5 children)
No, if people had gone with the lesser evil then HRC would be prez. If your conscience isn't properly calibrated that is an entirely different problem. I didn't vote for her myself, I went 3rd party.
Yes you have a valid point about REAL change not happening, but again Obama was going to pass something close to single payer healthcare and the GOP blocked that shit like crazy. The one real change Obama could have made and it was shot down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:09AM
Nope, the dems had a big enough majority to overcome the GOP. It was their own people that fucked up, or more correctly sold their votes to their 'contributors'. And that is why they lost. No other reason. People saw that their vote for a democrat was a wasted vote. So, instead of voting third party, they stay home. That's too bad. The non-voting block could vote out the democrat/republicans completely and save us all. They are a majority.
And obviously, 'lesser evil' is quite subjective. 'Staying the course' is not necessarily the 'lesser evil'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:18AM (3 children)
Look again.
Obama didn't write that law. Congress's democrats wrote the law.
This is important: the democrats wrote the law. They had control of both houses of congress, and could (and did) pass what they could agree on.
Obama signed it, and waved a banner and took a lot of credit, but realistically it should be called Pelosicare. Obama had very little to do with the content of the law.
Sure, the republicans didn't vote for it. So what? They're not obliged to vote for things just because they're proposed, and it's a cinch that the bulk of their constituents didn't want them voting for that law. Want to know how I know this? The fact that the democrats didn't have total control over congress after the next elections. It's just like the old "assault weapons" ban in Clinton's first term, that handed congress to the republicans. Same dynamic at work: big, brand name policy with much banner-waving and declarations about how this would make America safe for democracy and the children and the whales and the bison and the wolves and the fluffy bunnies, and the electorate comes back with a resounding, unambiguous FUCKYOU written on ballot papers.
It's even worse than that; you remember that the democrats took Congress on the blue wave that was assisted by the Tea Party being active, without having really worked out what's a good candidate. They lost the republicans a bunch of seats - but that should have been a warning to the democrats. And yet, and yet, they went ahead and sunk themselves.
Brilliant move, guys. Really, stunning stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:33AM (2 children)
Yes the DNC is garbage, but the GOP is shit. Again, I'll take garbage over shit. Obama promised hope and change, he was the leader so he bears the responsibility.
Besides that your point is wrong, HRC won the popular vote. With all the evidence of voter suppression and "hacked" voting machines that don't record properly, yeaaaaah, I think you might be mistaking criminal behavior for reality.
THIS attitude is why we're in such a fucked up state right now. Something that would have been a literal life saving piece of legislation was torpedoed and you say "so what"?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @01:40PM
No. This is a false dilemma. If they come into power again (this side of the whirlwind), the Democratic Party will do nothing to attempt to resolve the social conditions that allowed Trumpism to take root and grow. Trump is not an aberration or a mistake. He is the predictable outcome of counterrevolutionary policies against the working class that the Democratic Party has supported (jointly with the Republican Party) at least since WJC. The whirlwind cannot be stopped simply by winning the next election. If the alt-right are somehow denied political power over and over again, the whirlwind will still manifest, in that scenario as violence in the streets and a bloody civil war.
If everybody in the USA who does not vote because they can find no representation among the two major capitalist parties (Republican and Democratic) were instead to vote Libertarian and Green, we might actually start getting somewhere. Voter turnout is just that damned low. If there were political awareness of the Green Party as a left-wing alternative to the Democratic Party, they could be propelled into power with the swiftness the Republican Party came about before the Civil War (1860).
But we are likely past the tipping point into fascist dictatorship anyway. Unless
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:46PM
You need a refresher on your civics.
Obama was the leader of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Got that? This is not the branch that writes laws. He can a) sign laws or b) veto them. That's it. That's all he gets. Oh, sure, he can propose laws - but so can you. The president (by deliberate design) has no handle on the legislative deliberations that are handled by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
If you want to give credit or blame to leaders, about a law, go to the leaders of the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, which in this case most notably means Nancy Pelosi.
As for HRC winning the popular vote (by which I think you mean plurality), that is an irrelevant factoid in this system. If you don't like the electoral college, feel free to complain about that, but Trump won, as far as all the enraged investigations after the fact could tell, within the system.
As for your bland assumption that single payer is such a life saver, all I can say is that I lived under single payer. It sucked. It actively inhibits personalised medicine. It constrains formularies. It weakens patient responsiveness by doctors.
There are lots of things wrong with the american medical system. Single payer isn't a problem-free solution to those, and I'd argue that the cure is worse than the disease.