This just keeps getting better and better: “from still not having watched the video, maybe I will someday, but I have better things to do”. You want to participate in a discussion about a video you’re completely ignorant of, and willfully choosing to remain ignorant of. I don’t see how I (or anyone else) can possibly help you. If you decide to make a minimum investment of time and effort to understand the subject matter being discussed, come back after you’ve watched the video and we can talk more.
Better still, why don’t you tell us the major point that this incident verifies? 'Cause it seems like it proves something big and important to you. Which is what?
Sorry, like I said, I don’t watch videos at work, and I don’t really straight dope from home. Right now, there are several clients waiting on my groomers to finish their dogs. The clients think I am over here working on something important.
Tell ya what, since this video is so very important to you, and it is the video upon which all of democracy rests, when I come in tomorrow to take care of paperwork and clean up, I’ll take a look at at.
In the meantime, could you explain why some actress asking Obama an apparently ignorant question proves some sort of downfall of democracy?
You know, demanding to have a discussion on a video you refuse to watch is pretty nuts. Why don’t you just drop it? There’s plenty of stuff in the world to argue about.
Ex-Colo. GOP leader said only Democrats committed voter fraud. Now he’s charged with voter fraud.
"On his Oct. 6 show, Curtis delved into what he called the “sordid history” of voter fraud with guest Kevin Collins, author of “The Dirty Locked Away History of the Democrat Party.”
During the segment, titled “Voter Fraud and Other Democratic Misbehaviors,” Curtis and Collins alleged that the practice was essentially unique to Democrats.
“Voter fraud is not an easy crime to commit,” Collins said at the beginning of the show. “It needs a certain cadre of devoted criminal Democrats to carry it out.”"
Trump also has been wondering “where’s the investigation” so he is solving that issue:
Having Congress appropriate funds for a new, fully funded federal election ID card that can be obtained in a wide variety of ways from federal and state agencies in person and by mail and would not require photo ID so long as a person can verify by mail key biographical information without charge, would go a long way towards both reducing the Republican ID-based concerns of illegal voting as well as prevent lack of economic means being a potential basis to suppress the vote. Also, making federal election days (for non-run offs and non-special elections) a federal holiday or making all federal election days occur on a Saturday or Sunday would also likely increase turnout and some of the risks of suppression without causing any increase in the risk of illegal voting.
There was absolutely massive voter fraud, its still on going! Its called the right wing media, powered by special interests groups who only care about their wealth, brainwashing millions of Americans of voting and thinking in ways that greatly hurt themselves, their families and others… (Heck, we even have fellow dopers that have fallen prey to their bullshit)
They are our #1 threat - they peddle stories because “they sell” and not because they are true. Its the most vile of capitalism
“The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity will be led by Vice President Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), who has aggressively pursued allegations of voter fraud in his state.”
Wonder what will happen to Kobach if no discrepancies are found. And do ya think he would report on voter suppression?
As someone who has called for the creation of such a commission, I hope it doesn’t see as its primary job the erection to additional barriers to exercising the franchise.
Here’s some basic principles that I would suggest.
- Every American citizen (of age) should have the right to vote.
- Every citizen should have the ability to vote with the ease of any other citizen.
- No non-citizen should be able to vote.
- Every citizen’s vote should be counted.
- No citizen’s vote should be “worth more” than any other citizen’s vote.
Any others?
A corporation is not to be considered “a citizen.”
Why shouldn’t resident non-citizens be able to vote? They live here. They pay taxes.
Because they are not citizens. They get to vote in their own elections “back home”. They haven’t indicated that their allegiance is to this country. Indeed, one of the inducements to becoming a citizen here is that you obtain the franchise.
Mind you, I don’t really object to non-citizen residents voting on local issues (city/county level), assuming a practical way could be achieved of keeping them from voting at the state/national level. But really, the franchise IS one of the major inducements to giving up the green card for the privilege of carrying around our startlingly average-looking passport. 
I think that’s a good argument, however, we need to maintain the concept of “one man, one vote, one place”, which is impossible if people are eligible to vote in other nations’ elections. There’s also the allegiance issue, just because you pay taxes somewhere doesn’t mean you are more loyal to the country you pay taxes in than your home country.
So?
Why should we care about the distinction?
How many other countries allow non-citizens to vote? Just curious.
yeah, because that’s relevant
I don’t have too much of an opinion one way or another on the issue of non-citizens voting, but I don’t see how your observation is relevant. The one man one vote concept is usually understood to apply only to an individual election. A person can vote in multiple elections without losing the concept of one man one vote. Its not as if there is some World governing body that would mean that my voting in both Zambia’s and the United States’ federal election would give me more than my fair share of influence, any more than voting in the America’s next model prevents me from voting for the MVP of a football game.
I don’t have too much of an opinion one way or another on the issue of non-citizens voting, but I don’t see how this concept would be relevant… The one man one vote concept is usually understood to apply only to an individual election. A person can vote in multiple elections without losing the concept of one man one vote. Its not as if there is some World governing body that would mean that my voting in both Zambia’s and the United States’ federal election would give me more than my fair share of influence, any more than voting in the America’s next model prevents me from voting for the MVP of a football game.