• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

Every clever deception has some sliver of truth mixed in...So while some of the factual things DWS spoke of may indeed be a contributing factor to the loss, it is the rhetorical use of deceptive exaggeration that makes her dishonest.

What does that even mean? If Wasserman reports the facts about the election - that by its very nature is not deceptive.
 
OK prove me wrong......

Yes, some people qualified for communications subsidies for a while now (progressive idea of course) however, people are getting free ****ing cell phones presently under the stimulus er "new CRA."





Are you trying to tell me a video from James O'Keefe proves anything? LOL


Conservative activist James O'Keefe released a new highly edited video that he's using to suggest there are widespread problems with a government program that provides phones and phone service to low-income Americans.

The Lifeline phone program, which according to the Federal Communications Commission "provides discounts on monthly telephone service for eligible low-income consumers to help ensure they have the opportunities and security that telephone service affords, including being able to connect to jobs, family, and 911 services," has existed for decades and was expanded to include cell phones during the Bush administration. Conservatives have criticized the program repeatedly, which they have called the "Obama phone" for years.

O'Keefe's video, which coincides with the launch of his self-congratulatory book, purports to show O'Keefe's actors receiving free cell phones after telling employees of a wireless phone company that they plan to sell the phones to pay for drugs, other purchases, or bills. The edited video includes a narration by O'Keefe asking if the employees would tell his actors "to sell the phones and break the law."

The raw footage that O'Keefe also released doesn't show any of the featured employees telling the actors to sell their free phones, despite the actors repeatedly saying that they intend to do so and asking about their resale value. As New York magazine's Jonathan Chait explained, the employees only acknowledged that personal property, in the form of these cell phones, can be sold by their owners to buy other things. The raw footage also shows that none of the actors actually received a free phone -- only information about how they could apply for a free phone and the eligibility requirements to receive one, with the actors walking away saying they'd bring their documentation later.

But O'Keefe's edited video is fulfilling its intended effect and is fooling right-wing media. The Daily Mail Online's David Martosko, who wrote the exclusive article about O'Keefe's video, falsely wrote in his headline that the video "catches wireless employees passing out 'Obama phones' to people who say they'll sell them for drugs, shoes, handbags and spending cash." Martosko again wrote that the video:

hows two corporate distributors of free cell phones handing out the mobile devices to people who have promised to sell them for drug money, to buy shoes and handbags, to pay off their bills, or just for extra spending cash.


Again, the raw footage shows that the actors who stated their intention to sell free phones for these reasons never actually received phones.

Fox News has teased a segment on the O'Keefe video for Tuesday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor. Will Fox fall for O'Keefe's misleading framing?

Right-Wing Media Already Falling For O'Keefe's Latest Smear Campaign | Blog | Media Matters for America


And there is Factcheck.org

Griffin's video focuses on Lifeline, a federally mandated program that reimburses phone companies with a monthly subsidy of $9.25 for each low-income customer who uses a landline or a cell phone. The program has allowed millions of persons living under or just above the poverty line to acquire cell phones -- once considered a luxury -- for free.

Lifeline is funded by telecom customers who pay a universal service fee as part of their phone bills. The fee technically is not a tax but a cross subsidy, the rules of which are determined by the Federal Communications Commission.

[...]

Griffin's video portrays Lifeline as a taxpayer-funded program. Technically, it's not. Telecom customers cover the cost.

[...]

[T]he universal service fee is not a tax but a cross subsidy overseen by the FCC. The U.S. Treasury does not collect or handle the funds. Griffin's description goes too far.​

Congressman’s Slippery Cell Phone Claim
 
You have done NOTHING to negate two simple facts about this recall election and all the bluff and bluster from you does not change that reality:

1 - mail in ballots were not allowed in this election
2- some 70% of Colorado voters use mail in ballots
Blah, blah, blah... get over it. You lost. Not only did you lose, but the left's platform on gun control is a loser as well - which is why they have to FORCE it upon the citizenry as they did in CO.

Again - get over it.
 
What does that even mean? If Wasserman reports the facts about the election - that by its very nature is not deceptive.


That simply means that if DWS is talking about mail in ballots not being used, that may or may not be factually true, however, she makes claim that this is systematic voter suppression without showing any proof of any conspiracy to do so at all....

Show me some proof that there was a plan to disenfranchise, or suppress the vote for this election. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
 
That simply means that if DWS is talking about mail in ballots not being used, that may or may not be factually true, however, she makes claim that this is systematic voter suppression without showing any proof of any conspiracy to do so at all....

Show me some proof that there was a plan to disenfranchise, or suppress the vote for this election. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
All he can do is all he's done which is merely say it's so.

FWIW - that's why blabs has earned her blabbermouth title.
 
Blah, blah, blah... get over it. You lost.

get real... I was never on the ballot and took no position on this recall. the only thing I have commented upon is the attack on Wasserman for "lying" when all she did was tell the truth about the election facts regarding the barring of mail in ballots.
 
That simply means that if DWS is talking about mail in ballots not being used, that may or may not be factually true, however, she makes claim that this is systematic voter suppression without showing any proof of any conspiracy to do so at all....

Show me some proof that there was a plan to disenfranchise, or suppress the vote for this election. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.

So let me ask you a direct question - if we enact special measures which we believe will effectively prevent 70% of possible and likely voters from casting ballots in a particular election where we believe we have the advantage in a smaller turnout - have we enaged in voter suppression or not?
 
So let me ask you a direct question - if we enact special measures which we believe will effectively prevent 70% of possible and likely voters from casting ballots in a particular election where we believe we have the advantage in a smaller turnout - have we enaged in voter suppression or not?

Your reasoning, and parameters for doing such is too narrow, and you were not present, nor can you show any documentation showing that such a scheme was talked about, much less enacted...So your hypothetical is dismissed.
 
get real... I was never on the ballot and took no position on this recall. the only thing I have commented upon is the attack on Wasserman for "lying" when all she did was tell the truth about the election facts regarding the barring of mail in ballots.
She lied. Get over that. You're wrong. Get over that.
 
So let me ask you a direct question - if we enact special measures which we believe will effectively prevent 70% of possible and likely voters from casting ballots in a particular election where we believe we have the advantage in a smaller turnout - have we enaged in voter suppression or not?
That's an absurd hypothetical. 70% of "possible" and "likely" voters were not prevented from voting in those elections. Stop repeating that blatant, bald-faced lie.
 
Your reasoning, and parameters for doing such is too narrow, and you were not present, nor can you show any documentation showing that such a scheme was talked about, much less enacted...So your hypothetical is dismissed.


I thought we were talking about actual events and not a pure hypothetical.
 
Last edited:
That's an absurd hypothetical. 70% of "possible" and "likely" voters were not prevented from voting in those elections. Stop repeating that blatant, bald-faced lie.

What is absurd about the reality that 70% of voters in Colorado use mail in ballots and were prevented from doing so in the recall elections?

Are you claiming tht this DID NOT HAPPEN?
 
We are. Does that mean you've decided to return to the former?

Never left them. It is you who refuse to accept the reality that 70% of Colorado voters use mail in ballots and were prevented from doing so in this recall election.
 
She lied. Get over that. You're wrong. Get over that.

You have not pointed to any lie that Wasserman told regarding this recall election. In fact, I have provided evidence she told the truth about the election restrictions and the imortance of the mail in vote in Colorado.

You have provided nothing in the way of actual evidence.
 
What is absurd about the reality that 70% of voters in Colorado use mail in ballots and were prevented from doing so in the recall elections?

Are you claiming tht this DID NOT HAPPEN?
Are you claiming that 70% of voters in Colorado were prevented from voting?
 
You have not pointed to any lie that Wasserman told regarding this recall election. In fact, I have provided evidence she told the truth about the election restrictions and the imortance of the mail in vote in Colorado.

You have provided nothing in the way of actual evidence.
I most definitely have, repeatedly - the whole thread has for pity's sake.

You're just being too stubborn and contrarian to acknowledge that fact.
 
I most definitely have, repeatedly - the whole thread has for pity's sake.

You're just being too stubborn and contrarian to acknowledge that fact.

By all means then simply link to the post or give the number where you provided the information showing that Wasserman lied about the mail in ballot restriction.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Are you claiming that 70% of voters in Colorado were prevented from voting?


Where did I make that claim?

You do understand the difference between a question, and a definitive statement don't you? (Hint: that was a question)
 
Back
Top Bottom