• 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’

haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of the people that may or may not have been able to vote by absentee ballot, can you show that was the ONLY way they could vote?
 
EdwinWillers said:
:doh Dude, I'm asking the question. Are you claiming that 70% of voters in Colorado were prevented from voting?
Click to expand...

dude - where did I claim that? :doh Why would you even ask such a question of your own creation based on your own strawman? :shock:

Oh wait - there is the answer. :roll:
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Of the people that may or may not have been able to vote by absentee ballot, can you show that was the ONLY way they could vote?
Click to expand...

Why would that be necessary?

How does your question change the reality of what actually did happen in Colorado?
 
haymarket said:
Why would that be necessary?

How does your question change the reality of what actually did happen in Colorado?
Click to expand...

Real simple, I am frankly surprised you can't see it....If there were other methods to cast their vote, and they had the opportunity to vote, then NO ONE was suppressed.
 
haymarket said:
dude - where did I claim that? :doh
Click to expand...
How many times do you have to be told something before you "get" it?? :doh Did I claim you claimed that? Once NO! Twice NO!! Three times Hell NO!!! :doh

Pay attention: I'm asking you the question. This question: Is it your contention that 70% of voters in Colorado were prevented from voting? How freeking difficult is that???
haymarket said:
Why would you even ask such a question of your own creation based on your own strawman? :shock:
Click to expand...
What in the wide, wide world of sports does THAT gobbledigook mean??? :doh
 
j-mac said:
Real simple, I am frankly surprised you can't see it....If there were other methods to cast their vote, and they had the opportunity to vote, then NO ONE was suppressed.
Click to expand...
I think he knows that, which is why he's purposely dodging the question.
 
VanceMack said:
big money huh? And how much did Bloomberg spend? Just who is it that laid out that "big money", on which side, and to what avail?
Click to expand...
Boomberg's group ,Mayors Against Illegal Guns CONTRIBUTED just under 3 million to the campaigns of NRA targeted candidates.
The NRA,Alec and the Koch brothers BOUGHT media advertisements and never needed to reveal how many millions they spent. Estimates are that it may have been as much as 6 million.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Boomberg's group ,Mayors Against Illegal Guns CONTRIBUTED just under 3 million to the campaigns of NRA targeted candidates.
The NRA,Alec and the Koch brothers BOUGHT media advertisements and never needed to reveal how many millions they spent. Estimates are that it may have been as much as 6 million.
Click to expand...
You HAVE those numbers then or you dont? Source? Or just making **** up because your ass is still stinging?
 
EdwinWillers said:
:golf
Click to expand...
There were no mail in ballots and 70% possibly even more people in the counties in question have historically used mail in ballots almost exclusively. This majority of voters in this recall election were not prevented from voting BUT voting became much harder and inconvenient for them because of the political and legal maneuvering on the part of the NRA the Koch brothers and ALEC.
That, my friend is voter suppression.
Now what part of that don't you have the ability to understand???
 
VanceMack said:
You HAVE those numbers then or you dont? Source? Or just making **** up because your ass is still stinging?
Click to expand...
Because of the nature of campaign finance laws the NRA the Kochs and ALEC do not need to reveal how much they spent on advertising campaigns against Morse and Giron.
So no I do not have a hard number. Are you so naive as to think that the reported 550 thousand reported is all that was spent?
These people have very deep pockets and the airwaves were saturated in the weeks leading up to the recall election with lies and smears about both candidates.
BTW my ass is not stinging ... the Democratic party remains in the majorities of the Colorado House and Senate...the Governor is a Democrat and the saner gun laws they passed and signed remain un-altered and enforced.
The NRA victory here was largely symbolic and hollow.
They changed nothing in my state.
 
Buck Ewer said:
There were no mail in ballots and 70% possibly even more people in the counties in question have historically used mail in ballots almost exclusively. This majority of voters in this recall election were not prevented from voting BUT voting became much harder and inconvenient for them because of the political and legal maneuvering on the part of the NRA the Koch brothers and ALEC.
That, my friend is voter suppression.
Now what part of that don't you have the ability to understand???
Click to expand...

Voting becoming much harder for the intellectually challenged is not the same as voter suppression.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Because of the nature of campaign finance laws the NRA the Kochs and ALEC do not need to reveal how much they spent on advertising campaigns against Morse and Giron.
So no I do not have a hard number. Are you so naive as to think that the reported 550 thousand reported is all that was spent?
These people have very deep pockets and the airwaves were saturated in the weeks leading up to the recall election with lies and smears about both candidates.
BTW my ass is not stinging ... the Democratic party remains in the majorities of the Colorado House and Senate...the Governor is a Democrat and the saner gun laws they passed and signed remain un-altered and enforced.
The NRA victory here was largely symbolic and hollow.
They changed nothing in my state.
Click to expand...

Seems you don't have hard numbers, soft numbers or any numbers that may have a hint of reality attached.

Light up, my friend.
 
j-mac said:
Real simple, I am frankly surprised you can't see it....If there were other methods to cast their vote, and they had the opportunity to vote, then NO ONE was suppressed.
Click to expand...

Baloney - worse... its yesterdays baloney now digested and heading down the porcelain bowl in a swirl. I have to ask you a straight forward question - which is it? Are you being

1- hyper partisan and you are simply glad the Republicans won and you will take it any way you had to get it?

2- hopelessly naive to actually believe what you just said about the supposed "opportunity to vote" being enough..... or

3- totally uninformed about the actual ways of the world when it comes to election machinations?

Which is it?

You see, I make my living in politics and government. That is what I now do for a living. I run campaigns, write literature, craft strategy, write speeches, and generally tell politicians how to get elected. And once elected I work in the legislature working on proposals for laws and policy. That is what I do for a living.

So when you pretend that there are only two options on the chart - honest elections or barring people from voting - I have to either laugh out loud or suspect you are being grossly disingenuous in the extreme to pretend to believe that. You see, if one party set out to say that 70% of the public cannot vote in an election, it would last about as long as an ice cream cone outside in the summer Phoenix heat. Such a blatant move would not see the light of day before it was shot down as simply illegal. So what you have to do is find a LEGAL WAY to get less of your opponents to vote so you have an advantage in the election. In plain English - you have to suppress the vote legally.

In a state where 70% of the people use mail in ballots - the change the procedures in a special election where they can no longer do that and instead have to report to voting precincts where some of them have never been and cast a vote in person - is indeed masterful political chicanery worthy of Machiavelli on his best day.

You successfully suppressed the vote of the other side and the result was a win for you. And it was all done legally.

Machiavelli would pat your side on the head and give you a hearty and well earned "atta boy".
 
EdwinWillers said:
How many times do you have to be told something before you "get" it?? :doh Did I claim you claimed that? Once NO! Twice NO!! Three times Hell NO!!! :doh

Pay attention: I'm asking you the question. This question: Is it your contention that 70% of voters in Colorado were prevented from voting? How freeking difficult is that???
What in the wide, wide world of sports does THAT gobbledigook mean??? :doh
Click to expand...

See the above post for a perfect answer in the real world which takes your silly question and crushes and flushes it.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Because of the nature of campaign finance laws the NRA the Kochs and ALEC do not need to reveal how much they spent on advertising campaigns against Morse and Giron.
So no I do not have a hard number. Are you so naive as to think that the reported 550 thousand reported is all that was spent?
These people have very deep pockets and the airwaves were saturated in the weeks leading up to the recall election with lies and smears about both candidates.
BTW my ass is not stinging ... the Democratic party remains in the majorities of the Colorado House and Senate...the Governor is a Democrat and the saner gun laws they passed and signed remain un-altered and enforced.
The NRA victory here was largely symbolic and hollow.
They changed nothing in my state.
Click to expand...
Translation...no...no sources and you are just pulling more **** from your ass. Got it.
 
haymarket said:
Baloney - worse... its yesterdays baloney now digested and heading down the porcelain bowl in a swirl. I have to ask you a straight forward question - which is it? Are you being

1- hyper partisan and you are simply glad the Republicans won and you will take it any way you had to get it?

2- hopelessly naive to actually believe what you just said about the supposed "opportunity to vote" being enough..... or

3- totally uninformed about the actual ways of the world when it comes to election machinations?

Which is it?

You see, I make my living in politics and government. That is what I now do for a living. I run campaigns, write literature, craft strategy, write speeches, and generally tell politicians how to get elected. And once elected I work in the legislature working on proposals for laws and policy. That is what I do for a living.

So when you pretend that there are only two options on the chart - honest elections or barring people from voting - I have to either laugh out loud or suspect you are being grossly disingenuous in the extreme to pretend to believe that. You see, if one party set out to say that 70% of the public cannot vote in an election, it would last about as long as an ice cream cone outside in the summer Phoenix heat. Such a blatant move would not see the light of day before it was shot down as simply illegal. So what you have to do is find a LEGAL WAY to get less of your opponents to vote so you have an advantage in the election. In plain English - you have to suppress the vote legally.

In a state where 70% of the people use mail in ballots - the change the procedures in a special election where they can no longer do that and instead have to report to voting precincts where some of them have never been and cast a vote in person - is indeed masterful political chicanery worthy of Machiavelli on his best day.

You successfully suppressed the vote of the other side and the result was a win for you. And it was all done legally.

Machiavelli would pat your side on the head and give you a hearty and well earned "atta boy".
Click to expand...


Oh, so you by nature of your chosen profession in aiding liberal politicians, (which regardless of side of the isle is one step below used car salesman these days) is supposed to what, make your view infallible? Hardly....

Look, it is real simple, everyone had a chance to vote, that they either voted against your side, or didn't show up is just more proof that in a state like CO, you should really stay away from peoples guns....Stick to the liberal strongholds, not the recently turned blue.....

But thanks for playin' it is entertaining.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, so you by nature of your chosen profession in aiding liberal politicians, (which regardless of side of the isle is one step below used car salesman these days) is supposed to what, make your view infallible? Hardly....
Click to expand...

Knowledgable and experienced in the real world of politics. That is what it makes me.
 
haymarket said:
Baloney - worse... its yesterdays baloney now digested and heading down the porcelain bowl in a swirl. I have to ask you a straight forward question - which is it? Are you being

1- hyper partisan and you are simply glad the Republicans won and you will take it any way you had to get it?

2- hopelessly naive to actually believe what you just said about the supposed "opportunity to vote" being enough..... or

3- totally uninformed about the actual ways of the world when it comes to election machinations?

Which is it?

You see, I make my living in politics and government. That is what I now do for a living. I run campaigns, write literature, craft strategy, write speeches, and generally tell politicians how to get elected. And once elected I work in the legislature working on proposals for laws and policy. That is what I do for a living.

So when you pretend that there are only two options on the chart - honest elections or barring people from voting - I have to either laugh out loud or suspect you are being grossly disingenuous in the extreme to pretend to believe that. You see, if one party set out to say that 70% of the public cannot vote in an election, it would last about as long as an ice cream cone outside in the summer Phoenix heat. Such a blatant move would not see the light of day before it was shot down as simply illegal. So what you have to do is find a LEGAL WAY to get less of your opponents to vote so you have an advantage in the election. In plain English - you have to suppress the vote legally.

In a state where 70% of the people use mail in ballots - the change the procedures in a special election where they can no longer do that and instead have to report to voting precincts where some of them have never been and cast a vote in person - is indeed masterful political chicanery worthy of Machiavelli on his best day.

You successfully suppressed the vote of the other side and the result was a win for you. And it was all done legally.

Machiavelli would pat your side on the head and give you a hearty and well earned "atta boy".
Click to expand...

It doesn't say much for the Democrat strategists if they weren't prepared for something like this and, of course, it was all done legally. The winning strategy of the Democrats appears to be more straightforward.DEMOCRATS Arrested and/or Convicted of Voter Fraud | Specfriggintacular’s Blog | Eastaustinvoice's Weblog
 
haymarket said:
Knowledgable and experienced in the real world of politics. That is what it makes me.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have offered them some of your advice and experience and it wouldn't have been such a rout.
 
Maybe it was simply a case that the citizens sent the legislators packing that restricted their second amendment rights, and nothing else to read into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom