tkhayes

one of the possible explanations is the number of people that move from one state to another. they searched for names and DoB's to state that this is some sort of valid way of finding out that 'voter fraud' actually occurred. Which it is not. It jut have the appearance that voter fraud MIGHT have occurred. It is entirely plausible that 35000 people moved from SC in a year and registered in other states. they may have even voted in other states. Just because they are on the rolls in two places and maybe even voted in two places.....does that mean they voted in the EXACT SAME election in two places? hell no it does not. But it makes the argument that supports voter fraud. I register/vote in a municipal or county or state election in FL, then i move to NJ and I register/vote there in a primary and then federal election. Did I just commit voter fraud? No I did not. But the records shown in this study demonstrate CLEARLY that voter fraud was committed. Now you use that statistic in a faux study like this to say that there is voter fraud. bullshit. And BTW, voter ID laws would not actually fix or change that scenario. My ID is and was valid in both places and I legally voted in both places. That is why I roll my eyes when stuff like this comes out. and that is why I am vocal about voter ID laws. That is why i shoot holes in studies like this with ease. Do I want fraudulent voting? of course not. no one does. Does the original post make a case that it exists? fuck no, it does not. Is it worth pursuing given the other plausible examples of how these stats might have come about? hardly. Voter fraud claimants are making the claims - the onus is on them to prove it. When they come up with REAL proof of REAL voter fraud that is statistically significant, I am all ears.

There's a reason we eat tilapia...mostly because there is nothing else left and it can be farm-raised easily. 30 years ago, Canada shut down the Newfoundland/east cost cod fishery completely. Everyone complained. I had no idea why - they were no fish anyway. The stocks were decimated and they are only recovering in recent years, but still a fraction of what it used to be. overfishing is still a problem inside and outside the Canadian 200mile limit. So they started fishing pollack, which had started years earlier anyway due to low cod yields. We make fake crab sticks out of it, etc, but it was considered a junk fish prior to those years. Now it is what we eat (80's) Now after several other species have been decimated, here we are....eating tilapia. well, not me, but you get it. this is all that is left. We have destroyed the oceans already. Look at your grocery store freezer packages of pre-packaged fish, like codfish, swordfish, halibut. reasonably priced right? Now feel the size of those codfish filets. they are tiny....very very small. now look at where they are coming from....mostly China and eastern Asian countries. Why? Because they do not regulate the size of fish that can be caught, and they are basically dragnetting everything and anything off the ocean floor. why? Because they can and because we continue to eat it - capitalism at its finest. The only way it stops is by stopping the market. I live for seafood, but not in the past few years. I cannot bring myself to support a market that is destroying every living thing in its path.

I do not consider them to be 'evil'. they have a shit-ton of money and they use it to further their agendas, which is advantageous for them and disadvantageous for the majority of people I expect. If you were that rich, you would be doing the same thing. The issue is not the Koch Brothers - it is that we continue to re-elect people that allow this to go on. WE are the problem. WE vote them in. The system can actually change, the people who think they vote in a democratic way are kidding themselves and refuse to believe they have the power to change it (and are lazy, apathetic, whatever else)

so x 50 states is 1.5%, which is incredibly small, but also completely inaccurate, becuase if they reviewed 101 M voter records, why did they only find the 35000 that pertained to one state? Studies like this I get a chuckle out of. delve into them for 5 minutes and shoot it full of holes. And if one voter fraud is too many and must be stopped, then one gun death is too much and must also be stopped. oh that's right, you would claim that the gun owners have rights.....hmmmm....

I was against GWB and his election, but he still won.....does that make me right?

35000 out of a claimed 101 million voter records? you mean..... 0.03%? say it isn't so......That surely a reason to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on voter ID systems, purge legal voters from voting records and make it difficult for millions more to exercise constitutional rights. If that is a reason for voter ID laws at that small a margin, then the margin/stats of gun homicides in this country should surely be a valid reason for removing those Constitutional rights as well. Right?

eventually more and more will be or get coverage. what about the millions and millions that would have been covered with health insurance except for the right-wing states that refused to participate? The projections, originally, and still today, have years to come to completion....the deadline for 'everything' was not April 1. No I do not expect them to 'die off'. The republican alternative is what? Nothing. repeal it? Sure, there's a 'die off' solution. And I will bet you $100 that if the Republicans win the next election and even if they win majority control of house and senate, that they will NOT repeal it. single payer. next step.

It's a riot watching this. The ACA meets the original goals, as planned for this date and the right wing nutters here deny dent deny that it even happened. you people are a fucking trip. Who said and when did they say it that 30M people would be signed up by April 1? No such thing was ever said. There are several other milestones coming - this is one of them. Fox news did not even cover it except a mention in a story that you had to search their site for. Anyway, while you folks are getting on with the spiral of doom, I am going to continue on with my insured life.....

My wife and I have been paying about $900/month for a decade now. that is just two of us. You sound surprised yet I would think it's a pretty good deal to get a full family for under $1000/month

SE Cupp is a pretty smart ladt, Masters and well-educated. I find her columns quite readable, because she tends to use facts, not emotions. But she has not criticized the ACA much lately. Her last column on the rollout was in October about how it was going to fail, but given that 6M have now signed up, she is not saying much about it. She is also pro-pot, thinks that the right-wing made fatal mistakes by drug-testing welfare recipients and agrees with some gun control and other changes to society on how to deal with those issues. In order words, she is not your right-wing ideologue, she is conservative but would not make it past the tea-party for sure.

Page 3 of Hobby Lobby's brief admits that they previously offered the health insurance that they now object to. You will have to google to find it, I have a pdf, Huff post did not 'make this up'. Hobby Lobby included the admission in their filings. that is called hypocrisy, yes. through and through. Not a paradox, true hypocrisy. actually saying you believe in one thing and then doing something else.

That is not entirely factually correct. Employers are already paying for it through insurance plans, or contributions to insurance plans howsoever structured within each company. And even if the '4' that they claim are removed, they will still be paying for it and I bet $100 that the premiums that the companies pay will not actually be reduced by one nickel over these four forms of birth control. So this is an ethical/moral, not a financial argument - I get that. So stop bringing up the issue of 'companies do not want to pay for it - I will argue that paying for it is not relevant to the case. Your (their) religious objections to it are relevant to the case, and exactly why they will lose this one. Your religious beliefs end where they impose on my rights. rights for birth control are not constitutional, but they are well established case law. This case, while divisive to the country, much like the pro-slavery arguments will die in favor of women having the right to control their reproductive systems.

Wow, can't believe this came from you. There's lots of room for us to agree on here... How about this - every child's birth certificate must have the father's name on it? That way, we can all hold the father responsible for raising that child. And, eliminating single motherhood would reduce poverty in America more than any other measure we could take. And, it would enforce the concept of a nuclear family, which is the cornerstone for civil society. What do you think? My statement was more parroting of right-wing mantra than my own personal beliefs. EVERYONE believes in personal responsibility, seldom can you mandate it without consequences. While the right-wing bitches about the ACA, they also thought it up first and presented it first and they offer no option, so seeming they are OK with emergency rooms filled with uninsured folks that we all end up paying for in increased insurance premiums, instead of finding some way for EVERYONE to participate, EVERYONE to pay something into the system and EVERYONE benefiting from it. The ACA is far from perfect, it is deeply flawed in the simple fact that we left insuring to the private sector, doomed to fail. But it will be replaced with a single payer system sooner that I originally predicted and I still say that it will be replaced by the Republican party once the overwhelming need for it comes around. Maybe even a private/public system, but either way, THAT system will most definitely be a tax. It will be income tax on everyone... EVERYONE. and it will be challenged in the Supreme Court and it will prevail as well. Why? Because ideologies do not always work.

yes it does but it is seldom black and white. that is why we have courts. If the laws were all black and white and there was little or no interpretation of said laws, we would hardly need the courts.

well arguably all the issues relate to the failure of Congress. They have the ultimate power. If Congress was doing its job, the President might not be so inclined to use executive powers to get things done. "Sometimes it is not enough to do your best, sometimes you must do what is necessary" - Winston Churchill and my all-time favorite quote And if Congress (local state and federal levels for that matter) wrote sensible legislation instead of ideologies, then they would stand up to the test of the courts. I am Ok when the courts get involved in tossing out stupid shit - it is supposed to work that way. Anyway, I agree with your premise....scary I know.....

Good man- that is how the process works

no, not every one drives. not everyone uses the military either, or social security, or education or for that matter health care. not everyone goes to the doctor, but in the 'new way' of the ACA, everyone is going to have health insurance or pay a penalty for it. The penalty is allowed under tax laws. This does not actually support the claim that the ACA it in its entirety is a tax. The original statement is false. "Given that Obama is a communist...." discuss. same kind of statement. an assumption from the beginning that has no basis, therefore not actually worth discussing. you people....really. get over yourselves. The Supreme Court already ruled on it. Which is great, unless of course you do not believe in the Supreme Court. Or the Constitution. Or the American way of things actually working. Don't like it? Get elected and change it.

Dana Loesch is a talk show host who is a college drop-out. her opinion is all of that - her opinion, and she twists true legal stuff into an emotional plea. Great way to run a country and surely a basis for the Supreme Court to be swinging her way....not. https://www.facebook.com/therachelmaddowshow/posts/10151677705569067 Rachel Maddow has a lot to say about the hobby lobby case; little of it emotional, and most of it factual based on the case law, prior Supreme Court decisions, human rights, the history of those rights, failed attempts to take over the country in the past by religious zealots etc. And she has a doctorate. And she has her own show as well, but unlike your host, she actually is smart. Guess who more people are going to listen to? correct.

Which means what exactly? That people will have more incentive to health insurance? I thought that was the whole point of the bill. Your 'disaster' is actually the intent of the bill. More personally responsibility, mandated by federal law. as in so many other laws, it holds people accountable. It will still fail because we left it up to private insurance companies, so they will turn it into a massive profit machine, which will pave the way for single payer. Probably sooner than I originally predicted.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0324/Sections/0324.021.html That is just Florida and it is only one example of which I stated there were many. try again. I will believe your fervent eagerness to make an issue out of the ACA when I see you letters to state and federal representatives regarding your requirement to have car insurance as a 'tax'.

The opening statement is still incorrect. The Supreme Court did not rule the ACA as a tax. What they said was the government could levy a penalty and that penalty would be considered a tax should people not get health insurance. If you have health insurance then there's no tax. That does not absolutely include all of the ACA as a tax. The opening statement is a massive oversimplification of something and summarizing it in one word- tax. That's just plain silly

Your assumption is incorrect, therefore not worth discussing. If the ACA is a 'tax', then so is your car insurance. And many other things that you pay for every day because you have to. And no one is discussing those things.

One of the early tandem fatalities was a low-time jumper colliding with and killing the tandem passenger on an opening collision. I believe it was the jumpers mother that was the passenger that was killed. I cannot remember, it might have been Illinois back in the mid-80's

we (Christians as well) poke fun at Muslims when they rely on Allah for guidance. "Allah has control!" - yes it is worth poking fun at, as is your patch as well. If your faith is so strong and your beliefs so fervent, then a little poking at you should be water off a duck's back I would expect. How's the missus doing....healing OK?

agreed, nothing is the bible is biblically accurate, given the number of versions of it that exist and the thousands of written interpretations of what it might all mean. "biblically accurate" is simply an opinion. and not worth its weight in anything