BSM1
What? Me worry?
Obviously we see things differently.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bloomberg’s Lateral Strategy
- Thread starter Howard Is
- Start date
Obviously we see things differently.
ecco
Veteran Member
bribe
/brīb/
verb
How is "I'll pay off your court costs so that you have all your citizenship rights restored" a bribe? How is that persuading some to act in his favor?
Just to add...
The Republicans always win because they have no qualms about playing dirty.
If I had Bloomberg's money, I would hire people with low ethics to uncover dirt on the leading Republicans in the Florida legislature. Then I would move on to Trump appointed judges.
/brīb/
verb
- persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.
How is "I'll pay off your court costs so that you have all your citizenship rights restored" a bribe? How is that persuading some to act in his favor?
Just to add...
In 2018, nearly two-thirds of the Florida electorate voted to amend the state constitution and allow felons to vote. The amendment applied to felons who had completed their parole or probation periods, and it did not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses.
The referendum was something of an end-run around the Republican-controlled state Legislature, and its passage meant that some 1.4 million felons in the state would be eligible to vote. It had bipartisan support outside the Legislature from both conservative and liberal groups.
The GOP-controlled Legislature, however, sought to limit the effects of the amendment by passing a law that conditioned the right to vote on payment of all fees, fines and restitution that were part of the sentence in each felon's case. The state, however, had no central listing of this information, and the Legislature created no system to help felons ascertain how much, if anything, they owed. Even the state ultimately agreed that it would take six years to create such a system.
Two felons challenged the law in court and initially won in both the federal district court and the court of appeals. In a second phase of the litigation, Judge Robert Hinkle held an eight-day trial and found that the "overwhelming majority" of felons would be too poor to pay the amounts owed, if they could find out what they owed. Hinkle said that the pay-to-play law had created "an administrative nightmare" and that it also amounted to an unconstitutional tax on voting.
His decision converted what had been a preliminary injunction barring the law from going into effect, into a permanent injunction.
But earlier this month, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, without explanation and two months after the court of appeals decision, stopped Hinkle's order from going into effect. At the same time, the appeals court, which now includes six Trump appointees, set a hearing in the case for Aug. 18, the day of the state primary.
The referendum was something of an end-run around the Republican-controlled state Legislature, and its passage meant that some 1.4 million felons in the state would be eligible to vote. It had bipartisan support outside the Legislature from both conservative and liberal groups.
The GOP-controlled Legislature, however, sought to limit the effects of the amendment by passing a law that conditioned the right to vote on payment of all fees, fines and restitution that were part of the sentence in each felon's case. The state, however, had no central listing of this information, and the Legislature created no system to help felons ascertain how much, if anything, they owed. Even the state ultimately agreed that it would take six years to create such a system.
Two felons challenged the law in court and initially won in both the federal district court and the court of appeals. In a second phase of the litigation, Judge Robert Hinkle held an eight-day trial and found that the "overwhelming majority" of felons would be too poor to pay the amounts owed, if they could find out what they owed. Hinkle said that the pay-to-play law had created "an administrative nightmare" and that it also amounted to an unconstitutional tax on voting.
His decision converted what had been a preliminary injunction barring the law from going into effect, into a permanent injunction.
But earlier this month, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, without explanation and two months after the court of appeals decision, stopped Hinkle's order from going into effect. At the same time, the appeals court, which now includes six Trump appointees, set a hearing in the case for Aug. 18, the day of the state primary.
If I had Bloomberg's money, I would hire people with low ethics to uncover dirt on the leading Republicans in the Florida legislature. Then I would move on to Trump appointed judges.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Nor much substance. All you can see from your view is the garbage spewed out by the MSM. Here's something for ya:
President Donald J. Trump’s accomplishment list archive. | MAGAPILL
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
An interesting play. And I have to say I like it. They are still citizens, they have a right to vote.
What is wrong with paying off someone's debt so they can vote? Why should inability to pay bar anyone from voting?
Especially in Florida, their state government is quite the poster child for state sanctioned voter fraud.
Tom
State sanctioned voter suppression, I think you mean.
In this case that's what I mean.
But there have been other cases of outright fraud. Knowingly counting votes that were illegal under Florida law.
Tom
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That would be an interesting topic. Is voting a right or a privilege?
Numerous studies have shown that voter fraud is negligible in the US. Voter suppression is a vastly larger issue.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
You haven't been.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
If your comfortable with Trump's schemes then you don't get to play the moral outrage card.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's so blatantly obvious what's going on, it dosent even matter anyways.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It sure is; dopes getting duped by the GOP. But it does matter because the dopes elect those who pose a danger to our freedom and democracy.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No taxation without representation.
They pay taxes, they are citizens, they have the right to vote.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
And our health and wellbeing and the lives and safety of our friends and loved ones.
ecco
Veteran Member
The garbage spewed out by the MSM? Very often the MSM shows audio/video clips of Trump commenting on a variety of different things.
The clips do show him spewing out hateful comments.
The clips do show him spewing out stupid comments.
The clips do show him spewing out erroneous and dangerous comments about COVID.
The clips do show him spewing out erroneous and hateful comments about election rigging.
I surprised that you agree that Trump's own words are garbage.
ecco
Veteran Member
Don't accuse me of cherry-picking. Here is the first item in your linked list...
Trump signs order to lower Medicare drug prices for seniors
But, as is typical of Trump Sheeple Apologetics, it provides no evidence to support the assertion.
How was this allegedly accomplished? BSM1, do you know?
What, specifically, was accomplished? BSM1, do you know?
Did the drug companies and the Medicare Supplemental Insurance Providers agree to abide by this alleged order? BSM1, do you know?
I know people on Medicare. Their drug prices have not gone down.
ecco
Veteran Member
Some people just don't want to let go of "the good old days":
Poll taxes in the United States - Wikipedia
Payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to the registration for voting in a number of states until 1965. The tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late nineteenth century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a number of states enacted poll tax laws as a device for restricting voting rights. The laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax.
Payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to the registration for voting in a number of states until 1965. The tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late nineteenth century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a number of states enacted poll tax laws as a device for restricting voting rights. The laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax.