“The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.”
–Josh Billings
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: skeptical citizen
IN: Now Trump’s Selling For-Profit Bibles
BY: Early Worm
IN: Now Trump’s Selling For-Profit Bibles
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Get More Smarter on Wednesday (March 27)
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Get More Smarter on Wednesday (March 27)
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Get More Smarter on Wednesday (March 27)
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Get More Smarter on Wednesday (March 27)
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Now Trump’s Selling For-Profit Bibles
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Now Trump’s Selling For-Profit Bibles
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
"Two can play at this game…….." Especially if one has a sense of fairness.
What's to keep people from finding the petition circulators for the Galindo recall and providing fake names and/or addresses? Is there a penalty for providing false information to a petition circulator? And if one doesn't give their real name, how would a circulator know a signer is giving false information, unless you hit up the same person twice?
I’d consider driving up to Greeley and visiting some supermarkets where circulators are likely to be. Anyone else ready to play?
Tempting. Though, I think if one did that, they could be found guilty of fraud, if they were discovered.
Besides, the karma is bad.
Two wrongs never having made one right.
Although, in English, two rights can make a wrong:
"Yeah, right."
Very clever!
If the circulators are doing their jobs right, they should check your ID and address to see that you live in HD50, then check to see if you are a registered voter. So probably fraud is not an option.
However, they are getting paid $8 / per signature, so they may give you a little leeway if you have at least a valid HD50 address in Greeley.
Now, they are probably also circulating this National Popular Vote (to repeal it) petition, so that you could sign with a little…..creativity. Actually, NPV circulators are at every crowd event all over the state. It actually might get enough signatures, even though it's the stupidest thing ever. Oops, I remember you said you sort of liked the electoral college, want to keep CO's votes as is.
They won't have any Polis recall petitions yet, but will be taking names to contact later.
It's not fraud on the part of public to sign as Michael Dee Mousse. It's free speech. And it costs the fascists $8 every time. If they ask for ID, refuse. They won't, they get paid for Micky Mouse, Donna Duque, Trans Alpine Gaulle and the rest. It's the secretary of state that checks them.
T.R. Ansgendar is another great name, as is Teri Ruth Annsinger. I used to use southern segregationists like James O. Eastland.
Sign early, sign often.
Bill Butliker, Hugh Jass, Mike Rotch.
You just cost fascism $24 and had fun doing it.
Maybe we could ask a subject matter expert? (IOKIYR)
Funny thought, Michael. I do appreciate the feedback on my idea though.
Well, "Only eligible electors may sign the petition. An eligible elector in this case is someone who is eligible to vote in the recall election if there is one. [Section 1-12- 108(5) , C.R.S.]"
On the other hand, "Any person who has signed a recall petition may request in writing that his or her name be removed from the petition. A signer may do this until three days after the petition has been filed."
So, if I'm reading correctly, if you are in the appropriate district, you can sign away — sign early, sign often — and then follow up with a written request to the appropriate office verifying the signatures that you want to remove your name. Done broadly, the petition signature gatherers will get paid multiple times and ultimately, none of the signatures would be added to the final total.
Last night CNN showcased five 2020 candidates with back to back town halls: Klobuchar, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg. I only taped and saw the last three, I particularly wished that I had seen Klobuchar.
To me, I am looking for a candidate that appeals to the majority of voters who don't inhabit our liberal bubble. That is, I'm looking for a candidate who can occasionally say no to ideas that only far left liberals are promoting. A litmus test question last night was whether currently incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote. Sanders said yes. Harris punted and said "we should have a discussion on this." (Harris used that answer again when asked if 16 year olds should be allowed to vote.) And, Mayor Pete said definitively, "No." I'm guessing that Warren would have said yes, but that might be unfair to her. And, I suspect that Klobuchar would have said no because she has said no to ideas like free college tuition while speaking before a college student audience.
My current preferences are: Buttigieg (although I may be insulated in the bubble on this. We'll see.) and Klobuchar. Harris is impressive, but I'm getting tired of her knee-jerk answers to many issues.
Not a fan of the idea of incarcerated felons voting; after they've completed their sentence, sure.
Agreed.
There is a great song on this subject by Merle Haggard titled, "Branded Man" .
When you have paid your debt…it should feel like it.
We were election judges for years, so I'm well-acquainted with that law. It always makes me happy when, in a discussion of an upcoming election, a convicted felon looks down and whispers, "I'm a convicted felon.I'm not allowed to vote.", and I can ask him, "are you off paper?" If he answers, "yes." I tell him, "Colorado restores you to full citizenship once you've done your time. Now log on to govotecolorado and get yourself registered." You ought to see those guys beam.
Well, well, Curmy isn't wrong on everything, though he tries to be. But what about felons on parole? Colorado bans voting by those incarcerated or on parole, considering that part of the sentence. I could go either way on the parole portion.
Give it a rest, Bob.
So, Curmy, you never thought about the parole thingee? They didn't cover nuance in your GED course?
Yes, Bob. I have less formal schooling than you do. A number of people do, I expect. Whether that makes me worthy of your ridicule is up to the observer, I suppose.
I'm sorry, but now that I know your history, I can't take offense at anything you say anymore. But you do what you need to do.
So, that's twice you used my real name, Curmy.
you lied by claiming I used sockpuppets and when I called you out by demanding you name them, you claimed you couldn't because that's against the rules.
that's a stupid lie, of course, because claiming MJ is really Voyag uer doesn't give any real names away.
but now now it's bob this, bob that, yes, bob, you're smarter than I am (so is bob's parakeet. And bob's parakeet is dead.)
But you misunderstand the education thing, Curmy. I think it took real courage at your age to go back and get that GED.
Oh, I still don't doubt you're using at least one other sockpuppet, Bob. Hell, it used to be common knowledge. The SN you're using isn't the only one you've used here, right?
But go ahead and do what you need to do, and say what you need to say. As I've said, I honestly can't take offense anymore. You're a cautionary tale, more than anything. Even to someone you look down on.
So name it, noodlesoup! Prove you aren't the lying pos everyone says you are. And since we're on such a first name basis here, what's your real name?
Bob, it's a documented fact that you posted numerous times using a different name than the one you are currently using; therefore, it's not unreasonable at all to suspect you're using another. After all, you've done it before. I needn't specify which one, because I'm just pointing out you've done so in the past. Others can decide for themselves.
As for who I am, as you've pointed out, I'm nobody. No one of any consequence. You, on the other hand, have had a stellar career, and were well-respected in your field; far more of an accomplishment than I or most people could achieve. Is this really how you want to cap it all off? Spewing insults and gross innuendo like a 12-year old troll on Reddit?
You were better than this, Bob.
Weren't you?
You're lying as usual, liar boy. Name the "sockpuppet" or shut up.
Can't do it, can you?
So back down and crawl back to your hole.
And, yes, I am better than you, as you freely admit.
But so is my parakeet.
And my parakeet is dead!
L
Bob,
You have in fact posted under more than one name on this very site; at least one that was different than the one you're using now. That is undeniable.
I don't need to follow any of your orders, Bob. I'm not one of your former subordinates. So, you can bark all you want, but there's absolutely no authority behind it.
You were better, Bob. But is this really how you want to be remembered?
Either admit you are a.lyingPOS, or name the supposed sockpuppet. One or the other, scummy. And stop using my real name. It's a violation of the rules.
put up or shut up, scummy!
I never said it was your real name, Bob. You did.
It's not like your super-double-top-secret identity isn't posted online in several places, including this one. People are supposed to pretend it wasn't?
So, you call people all the names you like, and throw a tantrum when someone dares to call you by a name you've posted under before?
Seriously?
Hey! What happened to my provocative post about the 2020 candidates? Can't we get back to bashing me for bashing Bernie?
Don't look at me; I'm on your side about Bernie.
Why not? They're counted for representation purposes in the districts in which they're held (predominantly white districts, unsurprisingly).
But, a thread.
Minors are counted for representation purposes, as well. Doesn't mean they can vote.
Serving a sentence means some of your rights are curtailed, as part of paying the debt to society.
Maybe, but curtailing the right of felons or incarcerated to vote was and is a specific mechanism designed to dis-empower African Americans.
Why not what, Sudy? A re you arguing the imprisoned can vote. (I say no.). Or just that they get the franchise back on release (emphatically, I say they should.). And what about when they are out of prison but still on parole? Colorado denies parolees a vote. I'm open to argument on this point and would genuinely like to hear your views.
Felons ought to have rights restored, on the theory that we want them to be a part of the community again.
I'm willing to consider multiple possible positions for when someone convicted should have voting rights (release from incarceration, end of transitional period, end of all aspects of sentence). I would prefer having a uniform NATIONAL standard, not 50+territories variations which screw with people's understandings of which laws apply to them.
I'm opposed to "restored for all felons except crimes of xxxx … " definitions, too.
I guess I'm sort of talking myself into restoring voting rights as soon as actual incarceration ends. The point of probation, after all, is to transition bad guys back to responsible citizenship. Restoring votes rights could be a step toward that.
And like John, I don't think the category of crime should matter. Murderers actually have the lowest recidivism rates.
See my comment above, V. And I know you're aware that probationers can vote here, though sadly, not everywhere. I would favor nationwide uniformity, as well. I wouldn’t have to educate so many such people that way.
The last I knew, Cookie, probationers could Not vote in Colorado. Has the law changed?
Googlesez Colorado denies vote to folks in jail and on probation, automatically restores after probation, if any, is finished.
Your source got it wrong, V. We started as e-judges in 2002, and this was the law already then:
https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/
I glossed over the distinction between parole and probation, Cookie. Coloradans CAN vote on probation, but NOT on parole. Good to learn about the probationary vote. Maybe we should consider changing the law to allow voting while on parole, but not while incarcerated.
WOTD from Kate Manne via Ezra Klein. "Electability isn’t a static social fact; it’s a social fact we’re constructing."
I'm dubious of a definition that reduces complex social realities to some perception of "hostility," especially if that can be applied to those above and below in status, does not require intentionality, and does not meaningfully distinguish between consequences developed from individual feelings, multiple individuals with common feelings, institutional definitions established by previous generations which can be and sometimes are ignored.