Hey, there! Log in / Register
Wellesley Dancing Trumps were canceled because teachers were scared of the parent who complained
By adamg on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 10:54pm
Wicked Local Wellesley posts excerpts from the grammatically and spelling challenged e-mails from a parent that got the school superintendent and principal to cancel a performance by three boys wearing giant Trump heads. Turns out it's not that they agreed with her, but that teachers at the school were afraid of somebody who seemed a bit of an unhinged Trump fanatic:
In the e-mails, which included a caricature of President Obama and another with a Muslim man holding a severed head, the parent objected to the content of the skits and promised to send their children to school dressed as the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
One Question
If these sorts of e-mails happened as they have been reported, why didn't the administrators at the very least send DCF to check out the safety of the children in this household? There are more red flags here than at a bullfight.
If they are that scared of this lunatic, perhaps they should have notified the police of any actual threats as well.
Because they wanted to de
Because they wanted to de-escalate a situation?
I'm guessing
based on the bent that the media took over the political censorship angle, the school was loathe to fuel headlines such as "Liberal Public School Principal Calls Child Services on Family of Trump Supporters, Tries to Get Kids Sent to Foster Care For Supporting Trump."
Even when that's clearly not true (they had valid reason to believe that having the Dancing Trumps would result in a disruption, and to believe the children were in danger with such an off-kilter parent), the Wellesley Public Schools could have found themselves targeted by the national media and every right-wing whackadoodle in the US. That would be far more unsafe and disruptive for the students, perhaps for weeks on end, than coralling one off-kilter parent and hurting some feelings at a puny middle school talent show.
The school's probably dealt with off-kilter parents before, perhaps even that particular off-kilter parent. The school hasn't dealt with the national media, ridiculous fake threats, and various nutjobs keeping the school in the public eye and disturbing weeks or months of learning time.
Even so
I have to wonder if this is an "everyone knows THOSE people are CRAZY" arse covering story for an administrator taking the easy way out.
Schools are required to report unhinged parents to authorities - both for the safety of children in the school and children in the home. If they were that concerned over an unhinged parent and cite "the faculty was scared of them", they need to take appropriate action. They are required to.
You don't know whether or not they called
Reports are confidential.
not if they called the police
Terrorism threats aren't confidential.
good on her, I'm glad
good on her, I'm glad liberals scare so easy
Oh
You have a woman freaking out because a 12 year old is holding a cut out of a candidate's head yet you think it's liberals who scare easily?
she shut them down with a
she shut them down with a scawy email that had cartoons.....though I really would have preferred if she had sent her kids in dressed as obama.
The conservative doctorine
is based 100% on fear. Most terrified people on the planet. Yes Kansas, ISIS is coming for YOUR sacred cornfields. OOOH Texas, them scary Mexicans are comin'...better open carry in Chili's so they know you mean business! Then when there's an actual fight to be fought they cower and beg on facebook for donations and food while hunkered down in a federal wildlife post, which they trashed while chanting "USA" over and over. Then a 80 year old man grabs for his gun while feds have a bead on him and ends up dead, and now a bunch of mouth breathers consider him a martyr, instead of just a plain old idiot.
Weird that places like Boston, NYC, and LA, that are actually attacked by terrorists, are hugely liberal and STILL not afraid of these assholes even after the attacks.
And the so-called liberal progressive doctrine
is based on what? So-called liberal progressive shills, both amateur and paid professionals, don't foment hate, distrust, unrest ? BLM matter protesters, as one example, are full of love and respect for others? Really? And there are many more examples.
And nope, I'm not a Republican; I'm independent. Neither am I an old, scary white guy in the suburbs (the ultimate liberal progressive stereotypical figure of hate).
Based on PROGRESS
as the moniker implies. Like, Maybe black people should be treated like PEOPLE. Same with gay and transgender people. Oh and women having access to adequate health care and abortions? Is that so absurd? Instead of back alley coat hanger procedures? Just make abortion illegal right? Cuz that'll stop it. Just like the war on drugs has saved us from overdoses and the scourge of pot, which I can have in my hand within 30 minutes of departing a bus in ANY American city on the map.
Conservativism is based on conserving the old ways, and the people who draw power from those ways.
Black lives matter foments hate? You are joking right? MLK and Malcolm X make BLM look like fluffy little puppies. What are you 17 years old? Haven't passed an American History class?
Progressives possess much more courage and honor than you give them credit for, it's just not the blind, chest thumping kind you think is real. It takes a ton of effort and courage for sensible people to overpower idiots. Idiots are effing EVERYWHERE.
What else you got that I can pick apart?
You clearly haven't the
You clearly haven't the slightest clue what conservatism stands for. You essentially just regurgitated tired liberal tropes and stereotypes with some anecdotes....
Lets take a look at what the Left is currently up to:.
https://pjmedia.com/video/graphic-video-this-is-how-bad-the-anti-trump-p...
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/02/why-arent-we-having-a-national-conve...
Oh and then there's "May Day" riots in Seattle. Looks like a nice group of people
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3567815/Thousands-plan-May-1-mar...
And for those "Mexicans" you reference:
"The liberal Migration Policy Institute conceded that there are over 800,000 illegal aliens with criminal records, nearly 700,000 of them with felony arrest records.
Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute found that two-thirds of all outstanding felony warrants in the city of Los Angeles involved illegal aliens -- as well as 95% of outstanding murder warrants."
"Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 30,558 criminal aliens in 2014. CIS states these individuals had already been convicted of a collective 92,347 crimes before their release.
CIS reports that 124 criminal aliens who had been released by ICE between 2010 and 2014 went on to commit 135 homicide-related crimes across 250 communities throughout the United States by July of 2015. Even more shockingly, two of these individuals had already been convicted of a homicide-related crime before ever being released by ICE in the first place."
Fact Freedom
Because validating your repetitive nonsense is such a chore when you can just BELIEVE and have FAITH.
I think the failed tea-ocracies and Aynrandacies of Wisconsin, Maine, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana are plenty enough evidence that your tribe has no clue what to do with such things as data, reality, facts, logic, or managerial competence.
Since you presented no facts
Since you presented no facts other than discrediting them through rhetorical nonsense, try this:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Right?
Those pesky blacks in Selma should've jsut kept their mouths shut and adapted to oppression. Stonewall riots? Completely unneccesary. And what was with those terrorists who threw tea into the harbor 200 years ago? Just pay your taxes and get on with life!
Sadly, nothing gets done without violence in most cases.
As to immigrant criminals, isn't it amazing what people will do when poor, desolate, and with few choices? A hungry man is an angry man. Just ask the Germans of the 1920s, and the uneducated poor hilbillies of today, ready to elect another dictator based on snake-oil salesman tactics.
Progress ALWAYS wins, it just takes tremendous effort and time to overcome humanity's majority of stupid. Meanwhile conservatives are throwing snowballs on the senate floor, denying climate change, while coastal homes are swallowed by the sea and the north pole continues moving east. April showers bring May flowers just moved up a month in the last decade. NO BIG DEAL.
What else you got?
Public service announcement
Hello, friend. Are you saying to yourself "Self, I wish I didn't have to wade through inane comments citing right-wing nutjobs on the internet every time I read something Adam has posted"? Do you feel that CCD's (and our good friend FISH a few comments down, and a couple of notable other presences here) contributions here are 0% signal and 100% noise? I feel you. Just a friendly reminder that there's a killfile available if you're a GreaseMonkey user on FireFox. Universal Hub Killfile Silently blocks comments by anyone you want, for an enriched reading experience. One of these days I'll add a user-editable list, but for now you can modify it yourself after downloading if you want a kinder, less Breitbart-y experience.
Sounds like
no fun. Besides, if you don't listen to all the crazies then things like Trump becoming the GOP nominee are shocking and bewildering to you. If more folks realized just how borderline retarded the general population is we could all adapt our behaviors to suit, or at least get our papers in order to get out of the USA.
#nohope4humanity
So what's next, we start
So what's next, we start sending those who have differing opinions to the Gulags? Censor others speech because people don't like it? Start prosecuting people for their speech? Cause these things will really help this country move forward... versus honest, civil discussion which is non-existent these days... The 'internet mob' is a fascinating thing!
for sure, man
You're a numbskull
You''re a numbskull, but I'll try to explain this to you.
You mean, what's next after someone explains to people that if they don't want to listen to your inane numbskull ramblings, there's a technological solution that will make it possible to do so? You think that anyone anywhere is suggesting that the next step after offering people this solution to not listen to you is that we send your babbling numbskull ass to the Gulags? No. No, that is not in fact the next step, it's an absurd suggestion, and the only thing I'm unsure of is whether you knew that perfectly well when you said it and are just trying to stir shit in a characteristically unimaginative Limbot way, or you're actually enough of a numbskull that you believe that people not listening to you = repression.
p.s. you numbskull.
A shame there's no equivalent for Chrome,
because it is exceedingly tedious to read these people (what are they: retired? unemployed? teenage dropouts?) nattering on and on all day with their intellectual dishonesty, bad-faith arguing, and reliance on sources from the right-wing alternate-reality bubble.
It is useful to see who's utterly a waste of time, though. (Asking about climate science is a sure-fire way to flush out the irredeemable morons: they just can't help themselves.) Sorry I squandered another ten minutes of my life engaging with one of them.
if those are your sources
you don't know what the left stands for, either. have a great day.
Discrediting the "source" and
Discrediting the "source" and not the content is pretty lazy... Would a link to the "May Day riots" from say CNN or ABC made a difference?
I find this article entirely relevant...
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
no
I am aware of what happened in Seattle, thanks. CNN and ABC are also bad, for the record. Vox is usually trash, but that piece was mostly decent. It's true that I dismiss things like the Daily Mail and The Federalist as being entirely without merit; if that's smug, so be it.
Jacobin is good. The Week is all right. Here's some mood music for you, if you want to check them out.
Terrorism
See something, say something.
It isn't scared liberals who used 9-11 as an excuse to invade a country.
We aren't buying guns for fear of black people and Muslims when toddlers kill more Americans than ISIS.
We aren't the ones freaking out and pants pissing terrified over transgender people in restrooms, either.
Uh oh .... Don't look over there . . . SCARY BLACK PRESIDENT!!
Uh oh .... Don't look over
It'd be worse if he were wearing a kimono. Admit it.
Or ...
Whatever it is they wear in Indonesia.
What?
Why would anyone care if the kid came to school dressed as Mohammad? (Besides the kid.) If that's the worst they can do, bring it on.
Note: Adam, if you don't approve this post I'm going to dress like Vishnu.
Glad you said that
Because if you'd said you'd dress as Ganesha, I would have disapproved this post specifically to see that. Big fan of his.
That's it. You have insulted me....
Here I am...
total aside (tech issue)
Is that image whitewashed for anyone else? I've been messing with my chrome settings and that image alone in my 20 open tabs is washed out. If I load it separately into a new tab it looks fine.
Adam? Thoughts?
Edit - Resolved: I was hacking at chrome GPU rendering settings and seemed to have effed it up myself...
(No subject)
Lack of cultural literacy
It sounds like an ignorant peckerwood take on the belief held by some Muslims that it's blasphemous to depict the Prophet Muhammad, i.e., the whackjob parent assumed that All Them Muslims would find it hideously offensive if said child showed up dressed as the Prophet Muhammad, whatever that would look like.
Everyone knows what Muhammed looked like
There must be lots of pictures of him in the Quran, right?
Nice work there, Mom.
Good to see Trump supporters are capable of undercutting the stereotype that they're socially maladjusted bigots with grade-school educations.
Did Wellesley Police investigate this?
This story has many of the indications of the fake "hate" crimes we've seen perpetrated so often by liberals in recent years. As a Trump voter with an advanced degree, I found nothing offensive about the masks or the kids dancing. Funny and great publicity for Trump, in fact. Even if the act was supposed to mock Trump, "every knock a boost" as Mayor Curley used to say. For a parent, in Wellesley of all places, to send grammatically and spelling challenged e-mails with images of severed heads is too incredible to be believed. As an earlier poster mentioned, if this is true DCF must be notified. School officials and WPD are mandated to file form 51-A. The "unhinged Trump supporter" meme is classic, along the lines of the "violent Tea Party" that had no violence. There are some great men and women on the Wellesley PD. I hope they fully investigate this. I would start with the "scared teachers."
Phew!
I though we were going to be have to get through this discussion without the reasoned opinion of the Herald editorial page.
Thanks, Fish, for taking one for the team, and standing up for unhinged Trump supporters everywhere. I'm sure the libburl media is totally playing along with the Wellesley School System's chemtrail influenced coverup. You white guys sure have it rough.
PS BUY GOLD NOW
Unhinged Trump supporters is
Unhinged Trump supporters is a very real thing, not a made up meme. The leaders of the KKK supporting Trump is a good example. You have something in common with them in your admiration of Trump. And the many videos of people being attacked at Kla...I mean Trump rallies. A guy sucker-punched someone at a Trump speech and Trump said he was going to pay his legal bills. He supports the violence at his rallies.
It's obvious
Trophy wife. But like a participation trophy with plastic instead of marble and metal.
Why did it get that far?
Why would school administrators approve a blatantly political presentation in a talent show? (I cannot imagine "three giant Trump heads" not having some political content.) The proposal should have been rejected out of hand, for the same reason that a teacher advocating in class for Trump's election would be told to stop. Schools are not the place for political messaging. The parent has a valid point, whatever her motives and perspective.
It really WASN'T political
One of the kids' dads bought the heads from the Trump store. There was no speaking in the skit, they just danced around. I agree with the earlier post about the risk of dragging in the national media and the disruptions that could follow, so for that reason alone it was best to cancel. However, if the wacko parent hadn't made a stink, letting it go on was the right thing to do.
Running for political office
Running for political office doesn't shield someone from being made fun of. In fact it should be the opposite. Trump is a reality show clown who was lucky to inherit his daddy's business. He should be mocked for the countless wrong and dumb things he has said and done. The fact that 5th graders can see through his bullshit tells you a lot about Trump and his supporters.
Not the point
I don't care about shielding Trump from ridicule (and the comment above yours leaves me uncertain that ridicule was the intent). I would object if they were giant Hillary or Bernie heads, and for the same reason.
What IS your point?
I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but is it "blatantly political" just because Trump's head is on it? Absent any actual political content? That makes it political, in your view, and thus objectionable or inappropriate?
Let's do the thought experiment
Let's say it's entirely political. It was an intentional social commentary on Trump being a big-headed clown that is better witnessed as a tiny-handed dancer than a political party leader.
Guess what. Political satire *is* a talent too. You can argue over whether the kid's talent is his coordinated dance routine or the political satire that goes with it or not. But unless the rules for participating stated that the kids had to be 100% responsible for every aspect of the talent on display in their act, then that argument is immaterial to their participation as dancing Trumps.
See, art is the easiest thing to censor because you can always fall back on the trope of "well, that's not 'art' so I can stop you from doing it". And that's the lesson that gets learned by the next generation by acts like this.
It would have required more effort and courage on the administration to tell that psycho parent that her objection has been heard but the decision is to allow the kids to display their creativity and not stifle their design because there was nothing wrong with the talent show being a political statement (and a very minor one at most at that). That's why they backed down. It was easier to kowtow to Crazy than it was to stand up for the kids or their art (whether that art was theirs, their parents, or even completely unintentional in design as the father is claiming).
The problem is that giving way to Crazy just invites more Crazy. She got her way by flying off the handle. When the school wants to teach kids about Cinco de Mayo tomorrow, will Crazy start sending emails because "the Mexicans"? And will the school back down again?
and I thought Howie Carr
possessed better grammar.
Is it really appropriate to
Is it really appropriate to publish citizen complaints to town officials?
Uh, yeah. It's a public
Uh, yeah. It's a public record.
And
They redacted the name, which is good. I think this lady is nuts, but she shouldn't be subject to all sorts of internet abuse because she freaked out about 3 middle schoolers dancing with giant Trump heads.
So do we do the same with
So do we do the same with whistle blowers or letter from people of a protected class?
Sorry but I have a hard time seeing any justification of this being made public.
If I email my rep advocating a specific cause they should be free to publish my statement? NOPE, not without permission at least.
Every correspondence to and
Every correspondence to and from a public official is a public record, and subject to FOIA. If you want specific answers to your other questions, well, I'm sure Google can help you with that.
Dare I suggest
That email is a someone trolling. We are talking about Wellesley. And I'm 100% confident the school authorities (including teachers; hell, it may well have been a teacher who wrote the troll email) know it's a faux Trump supporter email. Not to mention, school management and teachers everywhere in America in 2016 are hyper-sensitive regarding anything remotely un-PC and perceived liability often this too is simply a convenient excuse to ban something).
I wonder how long Trump and his supporters think they can
get away with this strategy: 1) say something outrageously hateful, science-challenged, ignorant of statecraft, and/or generally crazy; 2) get publicly called on their shit as patent bigotry or nonsense; 3) pretend they never said it or blame it on supposed librul trolls who are trying to make them look bad.
Bigotry and reality-challenged nonsense is the conservative wheelhouse. Who do you think you're kidding as you try to roll back voting rights for brown people, lecture women on "legitimate rape", ban the all-terrorists-all-the-time Muslims and rapist Mexicans, and monitor the bakeries and public restrooms lest they accidentally accommodate gay and trans people?
Own your fear and ignorance and hate. It's your brand, and the entire world knows it.
wow what a loaded post. I'm
wow what a loaded post. I'm just gonna respond to one you mentioned and that will likely end up me being call "racist" or "bigoted" but requiring a photo ID is "rolling back voting rights for brown people?" How so?
Lets take a look at the DOJ challenging some of NC fairly recent(2013) voting reforms which can be found here http://nc-democracy.org/downloads/NewVotingLawSummaryAug2013.pdf :
"...The Justice Department, the NAACP, and the other plaintiffs claimed that all of these changes were “discriminatory” and violated the Voting Rights Act — a law designed to break down racial barriers to the ballot box. Apparently, in 2015 North Carolina, not being able to register when you are 16; having to register 25 days ahead of time; having only ten days before the actual date of an election to vote; and being required to vote on Election Day in the precinct where you actually live is not only racist, but a barrier to voting itself. Contrast these “conditions” with the ugly discrimination of the early ’60s.
For all the resources expended, the Justice Department’s entire case was built on speculative claims. Not able to produce a single eligible voter who was or would be unable to vote, the plaintiffs relied on hypothetical statistical arguments to claim that the turnout of black voters would be “suppressed” because they might use early voting and same-day registration slightly more than white voters, and because black voters are “less sophisticated voters.” DOJ experts actually made the borderline-racist argument that “it’s less likely to imagine” that black voters could “figure out or would avail themselves of other forms of registering and voting.” That’s a shameful way to enforce a law that was used to protect real victims of real discrimination in the Deep South.
In the end, real statistics destroyed the Justice Department’s case. The reforms the plaintiffs claimed would disenfranchise “less sophisticated” black voters didn’t depress turnout at all. Indeed, in comparison with the 2010 primary, the turnout of black voters actually increased a whopping 29.5 percent in the May 2014 primary election, while the turnout of whites increased only 13.7 percent,. The same thing happened in the general election. This knocked the stuffing out of the plaintiff’s discrimination claims.
The Justice Department still holds a thoroughly demeaning view of civil-rights law. It is a view that insists blacks are incapable of performing basic societal functions, and therefore the law must step in any time they are asked to comply with a simple procedural step to participate in the electoral process. This is not only an abuse of the department’s authority; it’s a misuse of the Voting Rights Act. It should not be tolerated."
Voter ID laws are not about preventing voter fraud.
W's DoJ spent most of eight years looking for evidence of the alleged voter fraud that remains the key justification for voter ID laws: they found virtually none.
Republican-sponsored changes to voting requirements and venues, like requiring photo IDs, eliminating polling places, curtailing voting hours, eliminating Sunday voting, etc. have been widely demonstrated to disenfranchise African-Americans, Latinos, low-income voters, the elderly, and college students, all blocs that are likelier not to vote for Republicans.
You go ahead and spin your rationalizations about these new Jim Crow laws. Exactly no one who's paying attention is fooled about what voter ID laws and other GOP-pushed measures that make it harder for people to vote are intended to achieve.
I guess you missed this part
I guess you missed this part and missed the fact that FEDERAL COURTS dismissed the case! So are you suggesting this is some widespread conspiracy to "disenfranchise minority voters?
"the turnout of black voters actually increased a whopping 29.5 percent in the May 2014 primary election, while the turnout of whites increased only 13.7 percent."
And how is this spin? Seems like facts to me.
The Democratic Party primary that deserves scorn for disenfranchising voters this year. With Hillary stacking up the super-delegates even while Bernie Sanders keeps winning, why should anyone bother voting?
This is nothing new. The Democrat Party has a long history of disenfranchising its party members and voters through Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised the vast majority of African Americans. Jim Crow was invented by Democrats and administered by Democrats.
While the hyperbole of Jim Crow is tossed at Republicans who seek to bring integrity to elections, it is the Democrats practicing systematic disenfranchisement again in 2016. Bernie Sanders won seven of the last eight Democratic primaries or caucuses but he is no closer to winning the Democratic Party nomination.
The ultimate irony is that the Democrats and their leftist fellow travelers accuse Republicans of bringing the return of “Jim Crow.” But don’t think you’ll get anywhere near the Democrat convention without photo ID. Democrats require ID to vote at, or even just attend, the Democratic National Convention. You can’t even get into the offices of the ACLU without photo ID.
Nothing says, "My argument depends on people knowing nothing
about history" like calling back to the Democratic Party's pre-Civil-Rights-era legacy of racism.
It is true, except that a funny thing happened in the late 50s and early 60s: the Democrats flipped, becoming supporters of civil rights, and Republicans became the party of institutionalizing and exploiting white racism. And it has been that way ever since.
Again, who do you think you're kidding? Republicans have worked hard to limit voting rights because their base is steadily shrinking. It's a pretty simple and punishingly obvious strategy: if you can't win the hearts and minds of a growing segment of the voting citizenry, just take away their voting rights.
W spent millions of DoJ man-hours to discover that in actuality, fraudulent votes account for a few thousandths of a percent of all voting, and none of them are based on voter impersonation fraud, the only kind of voter fraud that photo IDs can deter.
But you go right on trying to convince people that it's all about your illusory voter fraud, and ignore everything else the GOP has done to roll back voting rights.
Again, I am waiting for your
Again, I am waiting for your response on the 2013 changes to NC voting laws which saw "the turnout of black voters actually increased a whopping 29.5 percent in the May 2014 primary election, while the turnout of whites increased only 13.7 percent."
So again, how is requiring a photo ID "deterring voters?" Do I need to mention how often you need a state or federally issued photo ID for adults to function in this country? Yes I know that voting is a constitutional right...
So I guess Democrats, by not wanting to require a photo ID to vote, they do not care about the proving one is eligible to vote? You know virtually all modern country require photo IDs to vote, right?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/06/foreign-election-officials-amazed-by...
"In the U.S., a comprehensive 2012 Washington Post poll found that 74 percent of respondents felt voters should present photo ID. Support crossed all demographic lines — 66 percent of independents, 60 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of African Americans, and 64 percent of Hispanics."
Congratulations on finding the outlier, and continuing to ignore
the fact that voter fraud is an imaginary problem, as proved by a five-year effort by the Bush Justice Department.
Studies and collections of studies that show that new voter ID laws inordinately suppress minority votes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/04/new-evidence-that...
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/voter-id-laws-minorities-111721
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effect...
There are many more, but I have to get back to work. Life is too short to waste time trying to introduce right-wing ideologues to reality.
(Let me guess: you're a climate-science denier, too?)
But there HAS been voting fraud!
Here are two documented cases:
James O'Keefe
Ann Coulter
Aside from them, pretty much nothing...
lol. Please reference my
lol. Please reference my posts where I suggested using voter ID laws as a way to combat voter fraud.
How do you know?
How do you know?
Three of my family members are not voting in the upcoming elections. I am a huge fan of a candidate so three of my friends are going in my family members place.
How will anyone find out?
If you can't answer that then I assume you really don't know about voter fraud.
Really?
You have three friends who are willing to commit a felony for you?
Do you think I'm the first to
Do you think I'm the first to think of this?
Local politics is probably more cut throat. In all honesty I am sure I'm not the first to think of it.
Again, how would you know if it happened? Do poll workers know everyone?
No one has been able to answer me. So far, anyways.
You miss the point
Will you and your three imaginary friends get caught?
No, not unless you're a total dumbass about it. Also, 3 votes means jackshit. So who cares?
Voter fraud of any actual influence has to happen on a larger scale than you and three fake family members.
Furthermore, your family members have to be enrolled and not actually go vote. And if they had, they probably would have voted for Trump anyways because if they wouldn't have then why would they go along with being replaced by people willing to vote for Trump as that wouldn't be in their interest. So again who cares?
What you've described is voting surrogates. It's like the least harmful type of fraud. Let me save you the hassle. Next time get all those family members to file for absentee ballots and you can fill them all out yourself at home and mail them all in yourself and not need three imaginary friends.
Real fraud is hundreds of fake votes being inserted where no voter existed, using the dead or felon names to vote multiple times where no legal vote should have existed. Or filing hundreds of fake registrations and then attempting to vote for all those made up people on Election Day. You know, the kind of voter fraud that gets found out all the time without fancy voter ID laws being used to suppress minority and poor voting.
So this isn't "real" fraud to
So this isn't "real" fraud to you. Well, that's your opinion and I would suggest the law would disagree with you.
Again, like I've said doing something like this really could swing a local election.
It's fraud and there's no way you can justify it.
PS. I never mentioned Trump - not sure why you did.
Probably the same way O'Keefe got busted
A poll worker knew the person O'Keefe was pretending to be, and knew that he wasn't that person. Things like that happen when your neighbors act as poll workers.
But poll workers do not know
But poll workers do not know everyone.
How would you be able to tell I and my three friends committed voter fraud.
How would you even know it happened?
There's this little thing called "burden of proof"
Oh, Patricia, there you go again with the "but how do you KNOW???" You did this in the trans people bathroom threads, and you were wrong there for the same reason you're wrong now. There's this concept known as "burden of proof", and it means that you don't get to endlessly babble "but how do you KNOW" at the other side if the burden of proof is on you, not on them. And it is, in both cases.
Removing someone's right to vote = voter disenfranchisement. Making the exercise of the franchise burdensome = voter suppression. If you wish to do either of those things, the burden of proof is ON YOU to demonstrate the necessity for doing these things. It is not on them to prove that nothing ever happened to justify your suppression of their right to vote (as if one can prove a negative); it is on you to prove that there is a compelling reason to do so.
If the concept is still unclear, I'll be happy to provide you with numerous examples of what would happen to you if the law worked the way you think it should; for example, let's say you were to find your application to renew your driver's license denied because you could not prove that you hadn't committed a moving violation that would have resulted in license suspension.
I just told you how easily it
I just told you how easily it is to vote fraudulently, but it seems you don't want to admit it.
You just don't read, do you?
And I just explained to you why your anecdote is irrelevant, but it seems you don't want to admit it. Or maybe you really truly don't get it, so I'll try again, with small words: it's also easy (not easily) to drive your car onto the sidewalk and kill a bunch of pedestrians. It's easy to throw a brick and hit someone in the head. It's easy to do many destructive and antisocial things, and yet sane people don't go around wearing a helmet and face protector and demanding that no one be able to purchase bricks without a special license, because HOW DO YOU KNOW they won't throw a brick at someone's head. If you are in favor of restrictions of other people's fundamental rights on the off chance that they might exercise them in an illegal chance, you are one of the following things:
1) Insane
2) Stupid, and easily manipulated by people in category 3
3) Not actually concerned in the least about the possible harm that might be done, but instead eager to manufacture alarm over a nonexistent threat and create an opportunity to curtail others' civil rights.
Now. Which are you?
p.s. it's not too late to choose to be none of the above. All you have to do is stop clinging to your ridiculous narrative about voter fraud.
Reality? Like the reality
Reality? Like the reality that most modern countries require a photo ID to vote? Like the reality you need a photo ID to function in today's society? Ex: Social Security now requires direct deposit of your benefits and to set up an account the federal government requires banks to have a photo ID on file. Reality that according to the 2012 WaPo survery, 74 percent were okay with requiring a photo ID to vote? Apparently alot of other American's are ideologues too when it comes to voting.
But it seems to me you hold minorities to quite a low standard by essentially suggesting they are incapable of obtaining a photo ID and therefore "suppressing" their ability to vote...
Speaking of climate change did you hear about this?!
***Rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are causing an explosion in plant growth, according to a huge scientific study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The study is the largest of its kind and was written by 32 scientists from 24 colleges and universities in eight countries. It used three long-term satellite records of plant area and 10 different global ecosystem models to measure increasing plant growth.
“We were able to tie the greening largely to the fertilizing effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration by tasking several computer models to mimic plant growth observed in the satellite data,” Ranga Myneni, one of the study’s co-authors who is a professor at Boston University, said in a press statement.
The study estimates roughly half of Earth’s land-mass showed “significant greening” and only 4 percent of the world saw a decrease in plant life. The study noted vegetation growth is likely slowing global warming as well, since more trees and plants equates to more sequestered CO2.
The research concludes that CO2 fertilization is responsible for roughly 70 percent of increased plant growth.
“The greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two-times the size of mainland USA (18 million km2), and has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” Dr. Zaichun Zhu, another of the study’s authors who is a researcher from Peking University, said in a statement.
Oh boy
So, according to you...
Voter fraud is a REAL THING and we must prevent it.
There's no such thing as climate change, or if there is, it's gotta be good.
What are your views on Obama's birth certificate? I'm kind of afraid to ask, but this is great theater, really.
(oh, and the Trilateral Commission...)
Again, please show me where
Again, please show me where in my posts I suggested requiring a photo ID as a justification for combating a voter fraud.
Also please don't assume I don't believe in climate change based on study I posted.
And what if one does not have a photo ID?
Should they be denied the vote?
You're babbling
This sentence makes no sense. Would you care to repeat it in English?
Another right-wing numbnut arguing in bad faith.
Make a point that undermines their argument, and they disavow having implicitly made the argument with the feeble excuse of, "Well, I didn't literally say that!"
In this case, the fact is that every major voter-ID law has been justified first and foremost with the argument that it is designed to combat voter fraud, which is absurdly easy to debunk using the failed efforts of Republicans themselves to prove it exists. This turd can't debunk that, so he resorts to, "Well I myself personally didn't use that justification." No, idiot, but everyone who got this legislation passed did, and the point is that the whole raison d'etre of voter ID laws is a lie.
Trying to rationalize it after the fact with "Well, other countries do it!" is highly comical from someone who presumably gleefully joined in Freedom Fries taunting (even though it turns out the French were right about Iraq War II, dumbass), and still opposes universal health care, legal assisted suicide, and countless other ideas that more progressive countries have embraced.
When you see this kind of cowardly ducking, it's another sure indicator that you're wasting your time on an obnoxious, intellectually-dishonest dipshit with the rhetorical depth of a third-grader.
Why the name calling and mud
Why the name calling and mud slinging? As I mentioned in an earlier post, civil discourse is dead. And you just proved it...
I enjoy debating ideas with anyone with the courage
to defend their viewpoint with integrity, but not some schmuck who when cornered by the facts tries to weasel his way out with inanities like, "Show me where I literally said that."
It's bad enough that you're a smug asshole who can't make his case without the crutch of rightie propaganda media, but worse, you're dishonest, an intellectual coward. You don't deserve the time of people who try to argue ideas in good faith.
Since you're apparently much
Since you're apparently much smarter than everyone else, why do you re-write it for me! Lets see your mastery of the English language!
And read this article while you're at it, it seems like it was written about people like you...
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
Special form of stupid
Climate denier.
Not worth arguing with that kind of willful stupidity ... Imbeciles, all.
Go buy a place in South Florida and sign a waiver of any right to aid, please.
Where did I "deny climate?"
Where did I "deny climate?"
Ha!
Game, set and match, libtards!!!11!11eleven
Since you like quotes:
"Scientists have only conducted this experiment in their labs which works in the short term, the CO2 helps the plants and crops to grow faster, but when researchers from Science Journals had concluded that when they tried the experiment outside of the labs and more into the world the atmospheric CO2 actually reduced the plants growth when combined with other consequences of climate change, like higher temperatures, increased precipitation, or increased nitrogen in the soil.
Studies have shown the effects of CO2 on the plants in pots or in little ecosystems they are concluded to grow faster in the future. When they factored the realistic treatments, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation, and growth was suppressed."
Appeasement
60% of the time it works, every time.