Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016

It is rare for a politician to publicly deride efforts to boost voter turnout. It is seen as a taboo in a country that prides itself on its democratic ideals. Yet, New Jersey governor Chris Christie last week slammed efforts to simplify voter registration.

Referring to Illinois joining other states — including many Republican-led ones — in passing a same-day voter registration law, Christie said: “Same-day registration all of a sudden this year comes to Illinois. Shocking. It’s shocking. I’m sure it was all based on public policy, good public policy to get same-day registration here in Illinois just this year, when the governor is in the toilet and needs as much help as he can get.”

Christie was campaigning for Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, who is challenging Democratic incumbent governor Pat Quinn, who signed the same-day registration bill into law in July.

Christie, who chairs the Republican Governors Association, denounced the effort to boost voter turnout as an underhanded Democratic tactic, despite the Illinois State Board of Elections being composed equally of Democrats and Republicans. Referring to the same-day voter initiative, Christie said Quinn “will try every trick in the book,” according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Christie said the program is designed to be a major “obstacle” for the GOP’s gubernatorial candidates.

The trouble with such rhetoric — beyond its anti-democratic themes — is its absurd assertions about partisan motives. After all, many of the 11 states with same-day registration laws currently have Republican governors.

In reality, same-day registration is all about turnout, not partisanship. According to data compiled by the think tank Demos, average voter turnout is more than 10 percent higher in states that allow citizens to register on the same day they vote. Demos also notes that “four of the top five states for voter turnout in the 2012 presidential election all offered same-day registration.” There was some evidence in Wisconsin that same-day registration boosted Democratic turnout, but the Wisconsin State Journal of Madison reports that “Republican areas also saw heavy use of the state’s last-minute registration law.” The registration system been also been adopted by such deeply Republican states as Wyoming, Idaho and Utah.

Unlike Christie, most Republicans who have fought voter turnout efforts like same-day registration have argued that same-day registration would increase voter fraud. This has allowed the GOP to position itself as battling crime — not as trying to block legal voters. But the GOP has been unable to substantiate that voter-fraud claim, and there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Demos, for example, surveyed data from six states with same-day registration and found that “there has been very little voter fraud in [same-day registration] states over the past several election cycles.” In GOP-dominated North Dakota — which requires no voter registration at all — Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger, a Republican, reported that “voter fraud has not been widespread in North Dakota” and that there have been “very few known incidents of voter fraud” in the state.

Those findings confirm a recent analysis of primary, general, special and municipal elections by Loyola University professor Justin Levitt. He found that since 2000, more than a billion ballots have been cast in the United States and there have been just 31 credible incidents of voter fraud.

In light of that data, Republican efforts to prevent same-day registration and preclude voting betray a fear that has nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with political power. Essentially, the GOP fears that when more Americans exercise their basic democratic rights, Republicans may have less chance of winning elections.

David Sirota is a senior writer at International Business Times and the bestselling author of the books Hostile Takeover, The Uprising and Back to Our Future. Email him at [email protected], follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at

Photo: Erik Hersman via Flickr

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

  • Dominick Vila

    Honestly, if the low turnout we saw a week or so ago is a predictor of what is going to happen in November, I don’t think the GOP has too much to worry about. Tea Party supporters are energized, and they will vote. Most Democrats are complacent and seldom vote in midterm elections. Add to that the fact that there are more Democrats running for re-election than there are Republicans, and the ones that should be fearful is us.

    • mike

      We will wait and see. Republicans can shoot themselves in the foot with ease.
      The real question is why is the left so complacent?? I know the reason as do you, but that’s another story another day.

      August jobs report came out minutes ago and it was very disturbing.
      Prediction was 225k but only 145K new hires. After 6 months of over 200K.
      Manufacturing slipped back
      Participation rate has dropped again.
      Enough said.

      • tarheel T party

        Average monthly payrolls growth:

        2001-2008 +21k

        2009 -424k (negative sign)

        2010 88k

        2011 174k

        2012 186k

        2013 194k

        2014 215k

        • mike

          6 months of increases in 2014 and now this. Third quarter was suppose to be as big as lost quarter.
          I am not sure why you would give me this, but in doing so, shows the pathetic growth in new hires. As you know to change the Participation Rate we need 300-400k a month and just not part-time but full time hires, which is not the case. Almost 90% of all hires have been part-time(june 2014-288K new hires,only 13k full time). BLS source.

          • tarheel T party

            Over the past year, full-time employment up 2.3 million. Part-time down 145k.

          • mike

            Source please, if you can.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Here’s some documentation for you: The unemployment rate is the lowest since the last runaway-federal-spending Republican very nearly ran the US into another Great Depression. Thank God for Democratic administrations, which historically outperform Republican ones when it comes to the economy.

            That’s a fact, now try to dispute it.

          • mike

            Waiting for the source!!! You think I will pay any attention to you without proof?? Funny!!!!

          • WhutHeSaid

            My source for unemployment rates is the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The current unemployment rate is 6.1%. According to the BLS, the unemployment rate for 2008-2013 is as follows:

            2008: 7.3%
            2009: 9.9%
            2010: 9.3%
            2011: 8.5%
            2012: 7.8%
            2013: 6.7%

            In case you were wondering, Barack Obama took office as President on January 20, 2009. Source: WhutHeSaid. Under Bush, the US economy crashed so badly that it very nearly suffered another Great Depression, and as it was it became known as the Great Recession. Source: Everyone in the world with half a brain.

            Get off your lazy ass and get your own sources before you start flapping your jaws again.

          • mike

            U3 rates mean nothing to the overall unemployment rate. This rate doesn’t include those no longer looking for a job.

            The true picture is using U6 which includes underemployed, unemployed, and those that have quit looking for a job. This includes almost 20 million people.

            Participation rate is down again and is below 62%.

            No lazy ass here:

            Make sure you vote in the middle of the page and the surprise will be all yours.


            Live and learn my little partisan hack.

          • WhutHeSaid

            It doesn’t matter how you look at it — my statement stands. Using your own references, the U-4 unemployment rate in December 2008 was 7.5% — well on it’s way to a January rate of 8.9%. August 2014 is at 6.7%.

            If you want to use U-6, December 2008 was at 13.5% and January 2009 was at 15.4%, compared with August 2014 at 12.0%. So much for your references.

            So you are not only lazy (how much effort did it take you to cut & paste a link?), but you are apparently not very good at reading your own references. That’s about what I’d expect from a redneck goober, and you certainly didn’t disappoint.

            You may now admit that you were wrong, or alternatively, risk being labeled a lying redneck. Your choice.

          • mike

            I am in the present.
            The U6 is the more reliable number if you want to know where we really stand when it comes to employment or lack of.

            You are looking for anything to make this miserable
            recovery look good but it is the worst recovery ever.
            Participation rate under 62%.
            Try as you might the numbers don’t look that good, and if they did Obama numbers wouldn’t be tanking.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Well, we’ve proven a couple of things here:

            1. You can’t debate worth a shit.
            2. When proven wrong you aren’t big enough to admit it.
            3. Redneck goobers aren’t as smart as cattle.

            Any economic recovery is better than a recession or depression, and right now this country’s economy is better by leaps and bounds from where Bush left it. That was my main point.

            The ‘participation rate’ is NOT under 62% — it’s currently 62.8%, and it’s been declining since about the year 2000. Part of this figure is the disproportionately large number of retiring baby boomers, exactly the demographic that brought the rate up above 62% in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Also a part of this number is a rising number of students who would otherwise be in the labor market. Yet another is the rise in the number of people who are not looking for work due to disability.

            You can post all of the bullshit that you’d like, but the numbers don’t support your argument. You’ve been debunked.

            This concludes today’s installment of “Who’s the lying redneck”. Thanks for playing.

          • mike

            Oh really!!! Lets see, this started with you saying how great the U3 number 6.1% was and then I pointed out it means really nothing to those who analyze the numbers. When given the chart by me you then found that the U4 was a another less attractive unemployment rate 6.7%, but then you really ignored the U5 at 7.4% which gives an even better view of the employment/unemployment.
            Oh, you acknowledge the U6 but tried to go back and play a game of past numbers. So lets do it: 2004-2008 Bush’s U6 averaged 9.3.BLS The rate is today is 12% and yes it has dropped but nearly as fast as the end of past recessions. Which brings little comfort to the around 20 million that fall under that category.
            As to the participation rate, yes, I should have said 63% so I take the blame on that.
            But, you again left out the real and most important reason, it is not BB retiring, not college kid, not disabled ??. The real reason The Lack Of Good Jobs. Between 2/3 to 3/4 of the drop can be attributed to the lousy job market.

            Your 6.1% is a questionable number as to the health of the job market, U6 is far better and if you had read the articles I sent you, you would now have to acknowledge that fact.

            So your euphoric 6;1 has also been DEBUNKED.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I see. So you didn’t like the U-3 number from the BLS — the better number was the U-6. Except that the U-6 numbers from the BLS also show that under Obama we went from Bush’s 15.4% to Obama’s 12.0%. Oops. Oh, but wait — it really was the U-4 — wait, no — the U-5. Um…how about the U-6 average?

            It doesn’t matter which BLS calculation you pick — they ALL show that the US employment statistics have vastly improved under the Obama administration. We don’t have the average under the Obama administration because it’s not over yet, but then Obama didn’t start off with a healthy economy as Bush did, rather, he was faced with undoing the damage from the Bush administration.

            You are dead wrong about the participation rate being due to a lack of jobs. Cite the credible statistics that prove this if you believe that you can. Most of the people who are not participating in the job market have reasons OTHER than an inability to find a job — that’s a fact.

            You’ve lost the argument. ANY of the BLS numbers are better now than they were when Bush left office. That’s a cold, hard fact that you can’t escape, so quit whining about it and accept reality.

          • mike

            Nice try!!!
            You sure have backed away from exhorting that 6.1%, haven’t you!!!
            “Vastly improved” malarkey.



            Glenn Hubbard, Puzzle: Where have all the worker gone?, WSJ 4/4/14

            Here’s some more
  , open look for participation rate, then click on “missing workers” in first sentence and see the latest #
            And more

            Your vast improvement is 90% part-time. Just using June numbers, 288k new hires, of those 13k full time, and 500k full time jobs lost.

            Here read it again!!!

            So there you go!!! Many resources refuting your arguments.
            Only in your pea brain do you think you have won anything.

          • WhutHeSaid

            That’s what you’ve got? An opinion piece by Mortimer Zuckerman? Articles from last year? What happened to your “I am in the present” claim?

            I could cut & paste studies and articles all day long that refute your claims. Here’s one: The image below shows the so-called ‘unemployment gap’. Note the HUGE spike under the Bush administration, and then the gradual decline under Obama.

            Your problem is that you can’t read your own sources with comprehension.

          • mike

            Hell, you didn’t even read the articles. Because you would have seen updated 2014 numbers. You would also have seen it is the lack of jobs.

            A pretty simple question for you: If the lack of Jobs is not the cause of high unemployment, then what is?? The reason the unemployment rate is so high and participation rate so low is because of the LACK OF GOOD JOBS. Any one with an ounce of common sense could see that.

            You on the left think anything from the right can’t be true, what a load of crap.

            Then you give me a 2013 article and you attack me about present.

            Keep trying and some day you might finally comprehend. Until then keep trying.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I don’t really have to try very hard at debating you. Just how does a 2013 article contain updated numbers for 2014? That’s an interesting claim. If it contained 2014 numbers then it would have to be a 2014 article at the earliest — unless they were just projections.

            Who ever said that a lack of jobs wasn’t a cause of high unemployment? Not me. Now you are trying to conjure up a straw-man argument. The unemployment rate did go very high indeed, and it happened during the Bush administration. Lack of jobs (good or otherwise) was a primary cause, and the reason for the lack of jobs was massive layoffs and hiring freezes because businesses were in dire straits, anticipating another Great Depression, or flat-out failing.

            The more I hear you talk, the more I begin to believe that you may be one of those vile and despicable Tea-Bigots. Do you happen to have any snake flags flying outside of your trailer? Despicable Tea-Bigots are notorious for denying the obvious and just plain old lying. No serious and/or sober person can deny that the economy is better than where Bush left it.

          • mike

            Your “urban article” was quite revealing once I printed it out this morning. So, you want to stick to the your 4 reasons and ignore the lack of jobs, Right??
            In the first paragraph first page.
            “A prominent explanation for the decline in labor participation during and after the GR is the discouraged worker effect: as the unemployed FAIL TO FIND JOBS, they grow increasingly discouraged and stop looking for work.
            3rd paragraph first page.
            “We find that a deceleration in labor force entry(lack of job)rather than an acceleration in labor force exits has driven the decline in labor force participation.”
            Authors Nichols and Linder CONCLUSION
            “The dramatic drop in Labor force participation during and after the GR has been driven by a decline in labor force entry rates rather than substantial increases in the share of workers leaving the workforce”.
            It’s the lack of jobs, Stupid!!!!

            I see you might have a problem with following instructions. So lets try again!!! I want you to open site below, in the first sentence you will find the words”missing workers”, click on it, and lo and behold you will see the 2014 numbers.

            You said in an earlier post “You are dead wrong about the participation rate being due to lack of jobs” I think you need to look at your post. Could you have dementia??

            i will repeat you never read any of the other articles or you just can’t comprehend, or in denial.

            After the urban article it has to be a comprehension problem. Did you even read the article.

            Again, nice try!!!

          • WhutHeSaid

            Occasionally I run into somebody posting out here that is just plain stupid. Congratulations — you are one of those. You obviously never learned to read with comprehension.

            Here is an excerpt from the conclusion of the article:

            “The dramatic drop in labor force participation during and after the Great Recession has been driven by a decline in labor force entry rates rather than substantial increases in the share of workers becoming discouraged and leaving the workforce. Although labor force exits following the Great Recession are on par with the 2001 recession, the decline in labor force entry rates suggests that when a worker leaves the labor force today, they are less likely to try to reenter than in the past. In addition, younger women have become less likely to enter the labor force than they were a decade ago.”

            Here’s a link for you:

            With a quote from the article because I’m not lazy:

            “It is therefore striking that in 2005, when the labor force participation rate stood at 66 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted that the rate would fall only a bit to 65.6 percent by 2014 – far above the current rate of 62.8 percent.

            Recent studies, including a much-discussed paper by a pair of Federal Reserve economists working at the International Monetary Fund, have similarly concluded that the recession is the primary cause of the decline in the labor force.

            As is often the case in economics, however, the truth has proven elusive.

            Some economists did predict that demographics would produce a decline like the one we have seen. Notably, a 2006 paper by a different group of Fed economists predicted that labor force participation would fall to 62.9 percent in 2014.

            And a competing set of recent studies has found validation for these predictions in the latest data. According to an analysis by Shigeru Fujita, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the aging of the American population accounts for about two-thirds of the decline in labor force participation since 2000.”

            You obviously cannot admit when you are wrong. My statement was that the economy has improved under Obama, and you have never been able to offer any evidence otherwise. Also, you have claimed that people not participating in the labor force are primarily people who cannot find jobs — which is ridiculous. Most people not in the workforce are not working for many other reasons. Here is a link to some data on this from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:

            Because I’m not lazy and you are too stupid to read with comprehension, I’ll highlight the numbers for you:

            Total not in labor force 8/2014: 91.794 million.
            Do not want a job 8/2014: 85.413 million.

            The number of retired people is BY FAR the largest group of people who are not participating in the labor force. A full 16.5% of US adults are not participating in the workforce because they are retired. The breakdown of non-participation by reason is as follows:

            Family: 5.8% of US adults
            Illness: 0.2% of US adults
            Disabled: 6.0% of US adults
            Attending school: 6.6% of US adults
            Retired: 16.5% of US adults
            Other: 1.1% of US adults

            Add those percentages up, and what you are left with is the labor force participation rate of 62.8%. Even you can add, I hope.

            You’ve been thoroughly debunked. Just how foolish do you want to look? Admit the facts and accept the fact that you are wrong. Humility is good for the soul — even for redneck goobers.

          • mike

            And occasionally I find some pretty delusional people but especially on this site.
            Urban Institute
            ” The dramatic drop in labor force participation during and after the Great Recession has been driven by a decline in labor force entry rates rather that substantial increases in the share of workers leaving the workforce.” Those are from your source not mine.
            And I have given you other economist that say it is 2/3 to 3/4 the fault of a lousy job market.
            You still haven’t answered, if it isn’t the lack of jobs in the country why are there still so many unemployed, underemployed and people no longer looking. What’s the reason!!!!
            Yes, there are 90 million who don’t work, many retired, in school, but the other 40 million aren’t even trying for a variety of reasons, wealth, stay at home, disabled, or given up looking.
            What is scary, this participation rate bodes badly for this country, too few are paying for promised entitlements and more importantly the fewer number working will only drag down any economic growth.

            You have debunked anything!

          • WhutHeSaid

            You have been totally and thoroughly debunked. Just because you cherry-pick the parts of articles that you like rather than reading the entire article with comprehension means very little. You leave out the parts where the article goes on to discuss other causes such as the shrinking entry rates for students and women. That’s because you don’t like that part — I understand. But it still disproves your claims.

            Wow — what a spectacular attempt to backpedal! Now you are saying that 40 million people “aren’t even trying for a variety of reasons, wealth, stay at home, disabled, or given up looking”? That’s pretty much what I was saying which you disputed. Only the ‘given up looking’ class of people *might* fit into your ‘it’s all the lousy job market’ scenario. Some of those people may just not like what jobs are available, and that has always happened in the labor market.

            I see that you have entirely abandoned your claims that the economy has gotten worse under Obama than under Bush. That’s good, because it was a ridiculous claim that made you look foolish. That was my first original point. The other point was that the economy historically performs much better under Democratic administrations as opposed to Republican ones. Do you wish to dispute this next?

          • mike

            Your words: “You are dead wrong about the participation rate being due to a lack of jobs.”

            I never said there weren’t other factors in the mix, I said the lack of jobs was the major cause of a low PR.

            You claim PR is low because of your 4 points and nothing to do with the lack of jobs. That is plain delusional.

            Now you are trying to put works in my mouth. I never said it was getting worse but that it is no where near the recovery of past recessions even after 5 years. That is a historical fact.

            Just remember your words, “the low participation rate is not due to lack of jobs.”
            And yet you still can’t explain the high unemployment, underemployment and those that quite looking. Do you really believe that if the job market turned robust that a great many of the 40 million wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to work.
            Thank for the good laugh.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I see that you are now becoming passive-aggressive with your responses. I’ll take that as acknowledgment that your arguments are failing.

            Retirement is far and away the largest reason that people do not participate in the workforce. I’ve given you the numbers, courtesy of the US Census and Labor Statistics Bureaus. Inability to find a job is one of the smallest reasons that people are no longer in the workforce. Unemployed people, on the other hand, are still participating — they are just not employed. That’s where the unemployment numbers come from, just in case you were wondering.

          • mike

            Urban Institute article;
            “The dramatic drop in labor force participation during and after the Great Recession has been driven by a decline in labor force entry rates rather than substantial increases in the share of workers leaving the workforce.”

            ” We find a deceleration in labor force entry rather than an acceleration in labor force exits has driven the decline in labor force participation.”
            My God, these are from your article not mine.

            It’s the lack of jobs, Stupid!! Jobs not there and what jobs are there are mostly part-time.

            Participating in what? Not in the work force!!!

            You still can’t seem to answer my questions from before. That superior complex sure makes life more complicated for you, doesn’t it. Talking down and with all the incorrect answers.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Just because you appear to be an exceptionally dumb old fart doesn’t mean I believe myself ‘superior’.

            You manage to cut & paste one of my points yourself — you just didn’t comprehend the meaning.

            ” We find a deceleration in labor force entry rather than an acceleration in labor force exits has driven the decline in labor force participation.”

            Deceleration in labor force entry means that less people are even looking for jobs. The reasons are stated both in the articles (more kids in school, more disabled, more young women choosing not to work, etc.) as well in the BLS numbers. What it does NOT say is that the reason is that people are exiting the labor force because there are no jobs to be had.

            Every point that you’ve made in this debate has been completely debunked. You lost this debate, you crusty, stubborn old fart. Get over it and move on.

          • mike

            You just don’t get it do you??
            entry=entering the work force
            Labor force entry is getting and having a job.
            Exit=leaving the labor force by being fired, laid off, or retiring, etc..
            What is so difficult about that.

            Don’t forget to ask the weak job market and its effect on participation rate. That is the real question.

            Your position is the weak job market has nothing to do with PR.

            Your question has nothing to do with my position. “You said the weak job market has nothing to do with Participation rate.” Ask the question below.

            If you want to be intellectually honest ask the question below.

            What effect does the weak job market have on the Participation Rate? Or are you afraid???

            That superior complex just keeps popping up!!! LOL!!!

          • WhutHeSaid

            You couldn’t be more wrong, and now you are just lying. I gave you the BLSs definition for people who are considered part of the workforce, and unemployed people are part of the workforce AND the very BLS numbers that you reference constantly.

            Also, I never said that a weak job market didn’t have an impact on the participation rate, rather, I said it wasn’t the main factor. I guess you are going to lie about that too.

            By now I’m guessing that you are a bitter old Tea-Bigot pining for the 1950s when bigotry and racism were still rampant. You apparently are nothing more than an old, bigoted, bitter charlatan. Well, those days are gone and the world is busy stamping your kind out of existence. Sorry ’bout your luck.

          • mike

            One more time little dense one!!
            Two days ago you said, “You are dead wrong about the participation rate being due to a lack of jobs”. You also went on to say “the participation rate is a demographic phenomenon that isn’t driven by the availability of jobs……”
            No need to lie about anything, you said it and it is documented.
            My position from the beginning has been the lack of jobs-weak job market-is the major reason the participation rate is so low. Not the only reason but the major reason. Your article from Urban Institute says, Economic Policy Institute both says the job market or lack of is the main culprit. It’s the lack of jobs, Stupid!!!

            Your contention is the 4 examples you gave are the reason. That is the argument. GEEZ!!!
            What is so hard for you to understand.

            Thanks for the good laugh in your last paragraph, that old superiority complex in full stride tonight.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Just stop lying. You have the numbers, and the BLS says that the reasons for US adults not being counted in the labor force (participation), by order of largest group to smallest, is as follows:

            1. Retired.
            2. Attending school.
            3. Disabled.
            4. Family.
            5. Other.
            6. Illness.

            THE BLS also says that “Since the mid-1990s, typically fewer than 1 in 10 people not in the labor force reported that they want a job. “ This means that people who are NOT participating who say that they want a job is less than 10%. Less than 10% is NOT considered a ‘major reason’. Retirement is the number 1 reason.

            When people are not even trying to find a job you cannot say that they are unemployed due to the weak job market. At that point they are unemployed because they choose to be unemployed — for whatever reason.

            My contention was never that the 4 reasons I listed were THE reasons for the participation rate. My contention was that those 4 reasons were always cited by credible analysts, and indeed they are.

            So what we are left with here isn’t whether you lost the argument (you did, big time) but rather the reason that you continue to lie despite having all of your arguments being publicly dis-proven.

            It really infuriates you that we have a black President, yes? You need to try to disparage him in every way that you can because he’s black, and you wish to believe yourself superior just like you used to do — right? Except that the world no longer tolerates that kind of ignorant, hateful behavior.

            Just admit it — you are one of those vile and despicable Tea-Bigots. You are resentful because a black man is more successful than you in every possible way, and that doesn’t fit well with your long-held bigoted beliefs. You need to attempt to belittle the black President in every way you can because this is your only way to express you bigoted beliefs without drawing the scorn and derision that you rightly deserve. Time to come clean you bitter old fart.

          • mike

            Talk about a liar, look in the mirror.
            My position from day one has been that the Participation rate is so low because of lack of jobs. The number one reason, major reason, most important reason, however you want to state it, it was the main reason not the only reason.

            You argued from day one it was based solely on the 4 categories and nothing else.

            Your words, “You are dead wrong about the participation rate being due to lack of jobs.” You said it and that is a fact. However you want to try and say you did and however you want to twist your words. You said PR was not based on lack of jobs. Period.

            You refused to ask my question to the site, afraid of the answer you would get. What a coward.

            This time ask this question: What effect does the lack of jobs, weak job market, have on the participation rate? Then post their response, not your interpretation.

            Urban Institute: Your source.
            “The dramatic drop in labor force participation during and after the Great Recession has been driven by a decline in labor force entry rates rather than substantial increases in the share of workers leaving the workforce.”

            Retirement is far from the only reason, it is part, but as Urban Institute, Economic Policy Institute have stated, it is the decline in labor force entry-being hired, as the driving force of the decline in labor force entry rates.
            I never mentioned size of the 4 categories, especially the retirees, as you now try and frame your argument.

            Once again: “You are dead wrong about the participation rate being due to lack of jobs.” Your words!!

            Only in your tattered mind did I lose the argument.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I never claimed that the participation rate was based ‘solely’ on ANY number of categories, so just stop your shameless lying. What I said was that available jobs was not the main factor, and that’s a fact. There are 5 other reasons that the BLS lists that are larger with retirement being number 1.

            If I had actually ever made the statement that you claim then it would be a simple matter to cut & paste a quote from my post. But you can’t because such a quote doesn’t exist.

            You are just lying now because your arguments have been debunked. You have now lost any credibility that you might have had at the beginning of this debate. You are a loser, and a sore loser at that.

          • mike

            You know you are really a piece of work.
            One more time, you said:”You are dead wrong about the participation rate being due to a lack of jobs.” You then went on to say “The participation rate is a demographic phenomenon that isn’t driven by the availability of jobs…..”

            Your words not mine!!!
            Read and weep you f_ _ King jerk. Pasted by me from your post.



            3 days ago

            I see. So you didn’t like the U-3 number from the BLS — the better
            number was the U-6. Except that the U-6 numbers from the BLS also show
            that under Obama we went from Bush’s 15.4% to Obama’s 12.0%. Oops. Oh,
            but wait — it really was the U-4 — wait, no — the U-5. Um…how about
            the U-6 average?

            It doesn’t matter which BLS
            calculation you pick — they ALL show that the US employment statistics
            have vastly improved under the Obama administration. We don’t have the
            average under the Obama administration because it’s not over yet, but
            then Obama didn’t start off with a healthy economy as Bush did, rather,
            he was faced with undoing the damage from the Bush administration.

            are dead wrong about the participation rate being due to a lack of
            jobs. Cite the credible statistics that prove this if you believe that
            you can. Most of the people who are not participating in the job market
            have reasons OTHER than an inability to find a job — that’s a fact. In
            addition to this, the participation rate is a demographic phenomenon
            that isn’t driven by the availability of jobs, and has been declining
            for the last 15 years. That predates the Obama administration, so what
            do you have to say about that participation rate now?

            You’ve lost the argument. ANY
            of the BLS numbers are better now than they were when Bush left office.
            That’s a cold, hard fact that you can’t escape, so quit whining about
            it and accept reality.

            Quit wasting my time.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Just because you are a stupid, lying old asshole is no reason to be calling people names. If something is less than 10% of an issue then its absolutely true that it doesn’t ‘drive’ it. Not too quick on the uptake, are you?

          • mike

            Quit wasting my time. You are a F_ _ king jerk besides being a mental midget. Hell, you can’t even remember what you wrote.

            In your case ignorance is bliss.

          • WhutHeSaid


            You know, beating you redneck goobers at a debate is nearly as fun as beating you down in person. The same pitiful squealing, but I don’t even have to get my hands dirty!

            You’ve been beaten like a rented mule, you bigoted old whore-master. EVERYTHING you claimed was totally debunked.

            You are dismissed.

          • mike

            Only in your vacuous brain did you debunk anything.
            What was proven was your that you have no understanding of Participation rate and were stupid enough to provide documentation that you thought would make your case but actually resulted in destroying your case.

            Thanks, for giving me a good chuckle.
            “The dramatic drop in labor force participation during and after the Great Recession has been driven by a DECLINE IN LABOR FORCE ENTRY RATES rather than substantial increases in the share of workers leaving the workforce.”
            “Few people entering the labor force” pretty simple for most people with half a brain.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Dumbass. A decline in labor force entry rates means more people who have not even entered the labor force yet — meaning that they haven’t even started looking for their first job yet.

            The US Census, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and I all agree on what the labor force participation rate means. We also agree that those who haven’t even started looking for their first job are not part of the labor force because they aren’t yet ‘participating’. Once they begin to seek a job they are then ‘participating’, and become a part of the unemployed. Unemployed people who are seeking a job are part of the ‘participating’ number and are included in the ‘participation rate’ — so says the BLS, US Census, and me.

            The BLS and US Census aren’t going to change their statistics just because a crusty old Tea-Bigot like you can’t understand them. And that means you lost the argument — period. Stop lying, you decrepit old redneck, and just have the sack to face the fact that you are wrong.

          • mike

            It seem you are trying to change your premise, but alas, you can’t take away your remarks that are based on your 4 points not hiring. Points I had to copy and paste since you even denied saying them.
            You are a hoot, but still a liar!!!

            The following are your words, do you want me paste them again from your earlier post to show first you have no earthly idea what you are saying or just a liar?
            “You are dead wrong about participation rate being due to a lack of jobs.”
            “the participation rate is a demographic phenomenon that ISN’T DRIVEN BY THE AVAILABILITY OF JOBS…..”

            Your creditability keeps diminishing every time you try and deflect from your original position-job availability has nothing to do PR.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I’m not changing any of my points. The participation rate has never been driven by a lack of jobs. Its always been driven by retirement, entry and exit rates of women, and delayed entry of young adults attending school. Lack of jobs doesn’t have a lot to do with it. Try to cite ANY statistics from the BLS that support your claim. You can’t because they don’t exist.

            So what we are left with is the fact that you are a liar on this issue. Why do you lie about it? My money is on the fact that you are a bitter old bigot who hates a black President. You may as well come clean because nobody is fooled.

          • mike
          • WhutHeSaid

            What an incredible moron you are. Read your own first link at It says just what I’ve been saying all along, that the participation rate includes working-age adults who are either employed or unemployed looking for a job. This means that the unemployment rate could be 100% and the participation rate would not change as long as those people were still looking for jobs.

            Your claim was that the unemployed aren’t counted as ‘participating’ — which is complete bullshit. Nobody can be this stupid, so you are probably just lying because you know you’ve been beaten. Stupid redneck asshole.

          • mike

            You are so delusional!!
            Don’t try to put words in my mouth I never said “unemployed actively looking for a job” was not in the PR. My position that the major reason PR is low is because of the lack of jobs. Period.
            All three of sites I gave you define the PR as those employed, unemployed looking for a job, nothing more, nothing less, and is indication of the weak job market.
            One actually says that the categories you have vehemently said constitutes the PR is absolutely not included in the PR.
            Read again:


            Again your words:

            “You are dead wrong about the participate rate being due to a lack of jobs.”

          • WhutHeSaid

            I have never met a redneck who was so S*T*U*P*I*D.

            The ‘participation rate’ includes the employed and the unemployed who WANT to be employed. It doesn’t matter how weak the job market is — that doesn’t change the participation rate. THEREFORE, your claim that the participation rate is due to a weak job market is WRONG.

            Get it yet, you ignorant moron?

          • mike

            It is pretty simple but alas, you don’t get it.
            It is the lack of jobs that is keeping many people from having jobs. DUH!!!


          • WhutHeSaid

            Dumbass. Lack of jobs does not directly impact the participation rate. You’ve been supplied with information that proves this ad nauseum, so just stop your lying.

          • mike

            You are an imbecile!!!!

          • WhutHeSaid

            Answer the questions, asshole:

            1. If 50% of US adults have jobs, and 30% don’t have jobs but are looking for jobs — what is the ‘participation rate’?

            2. If 30% of US adults have jobs, and 50% don’t have jobs but are looking for jobs — what is the ‘participation rate’?

            You won’t because you are a lying redneck asshole — proven fact.

          • mike

            No need to. Facts point to the fact you were totally wrong as to what makes up the PR.
            See you later garbage mouth!!!! LOL!!!

          • WhutHeSaid

            Because you CAN’T.


      • Dominick Vila

        Mike, you know you don’t determine the strength of economic growth and job creation because a it was flat in a specific month. The economy and the market goes up and down dependent on a large number of circumstances and, therefore, the only way to assess whether or not we are moving in the right direction is to look at a long period of time before we claim victory or push the panic button.

        • charleo1

          You’re right. Mike is a fairly sharp guy. And, he is undoubtedly aware a disappointing jobs report, or quoting something he heard on Fox and Friends, about a lack of job participation, or discounting the number of new jobs, because, X-number were only
          part time. Or, if the numbers are really good, then. Obama must have had someone in the labor dept. make them up. We’ve heard it all before. The fact that the economy has grown, month over month, for a remarkable period of, 41/2 years, in the wake of an
          unprecedented, and violent, market contraction. If this
          performance had happened under a Republican Administration, guys like Mike, and television networks like Fox, would be shouting the good news from the rooftops. Instead, it’s the same debunking technique used to dispel the phenomena of global warming. Requiring about the same level of willful ignorance, that has people shivering on a cold winter’s night, proclaiming, “Well, so much for that global warming hoax!

          • sigrid28

            People who welcome whatever is counter-intuitive love facts, testing observations, and exploring the unknown: they’re the ones always questioning received ideas. Many are progressives, for that reason alone. Mike and his guys at Fox News are made exceedingly uneasy by anything that challenges the status quo. I find it odd that while clinging to the status quo–which is usually based in good part on the tried and true, that is, facts–Republicans also want to be the party that “will not be dictated to by fact-checkers.” That part of their platform has opened the door to many charlatans and a good deal of magical thinking, for which some of their crazier spokespersons have been savagely ridiculed. What they count on is docile voters who accept their version of the status quo and swallow outright lies with equal appetite. It really is a peculiar phenomenon.

      • Barbara Morgan

        Mike, At least she had the guts to admit that she had used the wrong words when she said the back of the hand and dragging women by their hair when commenting on the way Walker declared war on women and their rights. You never hear a Republican or Tea party politician admit that they had said the wrong thing and apologize like she did also you never hear them admit they were lying about anything even after it has been proved they lied and they keep on lying about that same thing. Are you being paid so much per word t per post or by how many replies you get?

        • mike

          “Had the guts to apologize” she was attacked from all sides for an outrageous comment that even candidate Burke backed away from her. That wasn’t guts that was political necessity.

          Did she really give an apology???
          “I shouldn’t have used those words, but it shouldn’t detract from the broader point”. To many it wasn’t much of an apology to abused women of America.
          How about providing all those Republicans that have lied, said the wrong thing, and never apologized. It should be pretty simple to do, right??

    • Taz202

      More reason, Dominick, that we in the red states must urge Dems and Independents to get out and vote.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    The low turnout in which states? Red? Blue? That’s the deciding factor in how the November elections will turn out. Much more of this endless Recession that isn’t a recession but an attempt by rich men to take over government and the revolt they instigated is the revolt they’ll get.

    How is it the Great Depression affected rich and poor alike but this so-called “Great Recession” affects only the middle and lower classes? How isn’t that a sham?

  • David

    I don’t think they really fear a bigger turnout. They just fear a turn out of people who can read and write.

  • FireBaron

    Considering the most famous self-admitted fraud voter was Ann Coulter (admitted it on national TV), the Republicans really cannot claim that Democrats would take advantage of this to commit fraud.

    • Sand_Cat

      Wasn’t Dinesh D’Souza also convicted of it?

  • bobnstuff

    The republicans have been working on disenfranchising voters for years now. They don’t believe in free elections anymore. Does anyone remember Turzai statement that he was giving Pa. to Romney but the court stopped him.

  • dtgraham

    Will these Democrats stop at nothing to get elected? Whether it’s affordable post secondary education, protecting workers and the environment from exploitation, health care for all, raising low income wages, SS and consumer protections…there’s no end to it. I’m telling you right now, this party is about nothing more than a blatant naked attempt to curry favour with average Americans by improving their lives, so they’ll (you guessed it) vote Democrat.

    Now, how low can you go? The Democrats are reaching into their dirty little bag of tricks and putting major obstacles in front of the Republicans by (wait for it) allowing more Americans to vote. Can you believe it?

    Well, that’s the Democrat’s sneaky little game but it won’t work. Democrats try to register voters and get them to poll sites, while Republicans play defence. As the Republicans always say though, “defence wins championships.” I hear some heavily Democratic polling places in red states will now have linebackers.

    • darkagesbegin

      I am glad I got to start my day with a chuckle. maybe it will carry me through the next 12 hours.

      • dtgraham

        Thanks darkages. The inspiration for that post came from reading GOP posters on the NM website. The thinking from all of them seems to be that if you do anything to make life better in some way for the average person, you’re just shamelessly pandering for votes and “enslaving” people to your party. Funny, I sort of thought that’s what political parties in a democracy were supposed to do.

    • mike

      Like the Black Panthers in Philly, Right????

      • dtgraham

        Oh I dunno. When you find a total of one new black panther (2012) in the entire country “suppressing” the vote by hanging around a voting booth, I think the thing being suppressed is laughter. When your entire movement gets to a restaurant and the hostess says she can’t seat you until your whole party arrives, you’re just not that scary.

        • mike

          More than one and with clubs.
          Time for you to go back under the rock.

          • highpckts

            You first!!

          • mike

            No, I think I will just keep responding to the asinine comment on this site.

          • highpckts

            Well then that makes you no better! Which rock is yours?

          • Sand_Cat

            Come on, man. Is this really the best you can do?
            That one (or FOUR) Black Panther holding the door for voters is a far, far greater threat to voting rights and the survival of our Democratic Republic than all the GOP-passed laws designed to suppress Democratic vote, not to mention the poll watchers and defective voting machines in minority districts.
            Really, if that’s what you’ve got, you’re better off saying nothing if you don’t want to damage your cause.

          • mike

            Only in your brain were they holding the door!!

            Just responding to the silly comment about have linebackers at the polls in the red states.

          • Sand_Cat

            Too many inane sports references in everything is one of the more unfortunate aspects of our culture, in my opinion, at least.
            I remember during a stink being raised about intimidation at the polls by Black Panthers seeing a clip of them holding doors for little old white ladies.
            Maybe it wasn’t in Philly.
            In any case, even holding clubs, they would just be returning the favor commonly done throughout the south (and possibly elsewhere) at polling places in minority neighborhoods. No doubt we can dispute the reason between us, but it seems that many African Americans are intimidated by armed and unfriendly-looking cops lurking about the polls at least as much as whites might be affected by blacks with clubs.
            It seems to me that a good bit of the fear about immigration or black activism and voting is an unacknowledged fear that if they become the majority, they’ll mistreat us as badly as we have mistreated them.
            It would be nice if voting were just voting, a universal right of US citizens to be honored and encouraged.

          • mike

            Good morning!!! How’s my new BFF?? 🙂
            I can say I have very little to no problem with your post. Damn!!!
            Since the 1965 Voting Rights Act things have changed and the intimidation has been almost disappeared.
            Here is the story:

          • Sand_Cat

            A rather disturbing story, but also a disturbing number of references about the specifics from the Washington Times and a couple from the National Review and the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post and New York Times – cited for most of the broad outlines – are likely not what you consider the most objective news sources, but they apparently did cover this. The first three are notoriously right-wing propaganda outlets.
            I by no means defend such actions, but the fuss over two or three guys at ONE polling station – in a Democratic district, no less – seems rather overblown (not that the incident should not have been pursued).
            The critical difference is that this was an action undertaken by 3 guys in one place, the 3 coming from a notably extremist organization not representative of either major party vs similar or even more abusive actions taken by the legal authorities and the police, plus others, in hundreds of places for more than a century. You are no doubt correct that open intimidation of minorities and other likely “liberal” voters has dramatically decreased since the passage of the Voting Rights Act over the figuratively dead bodies and vociferous opposition of those who switched en masse to the GOP within a remarkably short time after its passage. And their political heirs have shown a truly remarkable and uncharacteristic zeal for enforcement of the act in connection with this shameful incident.
            They are, after all, people of the same party and from the same region (if not actually the same people) who sued and won the destruction of that act by the Supreme Court, and who had begun moving more aggressively to enact voter-suppression measures, literally within hours after the decision.

          • mike

            Actually, one article said there were 70 at different polling places. All the attention was just on the one. Because I couldn’t verify it I didn’t post it.
            “critical difference” it still happened. You know the press will be all over it, especially if is from the right.
            I get the feeling that you some times think the Right is lawless. Why wouldn’t we obey the law.
            As to the Supreme Court decision, the section removed was over 40 years old and not relevant to today, plus Congress can replace it. In Mississippi which was it used this spring, my research found no problems that I could see. If there were I missed them. The ID was free, the only complaint I saw was for some rural communities was distance to get one. But still no real outcry.
            To me ID’s are not suppression of the law. Everyday I have to show an ID when transacting business with a credit card, when I set up hotel reservations and payment for all the disabled Veterans that I send all over the world, I have to fax my Dr. lic. with credit card to finalize the transaction. When I travel I have to show my ID.
            I have worked in every polling position(judge, observer,etc.) for the last 10 election cycles, always Black dominated precincts and the voters would always have their IDs out. 2012 I actually had to go out and tell those waiting in line that an ID was not necessary, because they would try and hand to the person setting up their vote, and I had to tell them only state their name and address because the law requires them to give it without our help.

            To me a ID is just good common sense. Not suppression of vote. To me it is an insult to these people being told they are incompetent to get one on their own. if they want to vote there will find the way to get the proof.

          • WhutHeSaid

            “I get the feeling that you some times think the Right is lawless. Why wouldn’t we obey the law.” –PetulantMike

            Have you had any recent conversations with Bob McDonnell? Just wondering.

            Voting restrictions, including ID requirements, are nothing but blatant attempts to suppress minority votes. There is no other logical reason to make these changes, because they address no existing problem. That’s pure logic, and you cannot refute it.

          • mike

            You seem to have a selective memory!! Have you had a chance to talk George Ryan, Rod Blagojevich, Dan Walker, Otto Kerner, Jesse Jackson lately?
            30 states have some form of ID, so live with it.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I could go on forever naming Republicans who have been indicted and or convicted, but then it was YOU who asked “Why wouldn’t we obey the law?” — not me. Well, answer your own question.

            The voter ID issue is not how many states have it, rather, it was that enacting changes to restrict voting — including ID restrictions — is obviously an attempt at voter suppression. There is no other explanation for going through all of the expense and trouble to change the laws because there is no voter impersonation problem that exists.

          • mike

            I forgot Ray Nagin . Yes, you can name more as can I.
            But your party does not have the high ground as you think.
            Say what you want about ID but it is here and growing.


          • WhutHeSaid

            But then I never claimed either party had the ‘high ground’, now did I? It was YOU who implied that Republicans obey the law. “Why wouldn’t we obey the law?” you said. Once again — answer your own question.

            Regarding voter ID, it doesn’t matter what is ‘here and growing’. I stated that it’s an attempt at voter suppression, which it is. You have not attempted to refute it, although you did with previous posters. That’s a wise move on your part because you really can’t refute it.

          • mike

            It is your opinion it is suppression that is fine. I don’t see it that way.
            I see you ignored the opinion of others attached earlier.
            To bad your superior complex keeps getting in your way

          • WhutHeSaid

            I don’t believe that I’m superior but perhaps you read disagreement in a public forum that way.

          • mike

            Now that is a good one!!! LOL!!!

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yes, and accurate.

          • mike

            Only in your silly little mind!!

          • Sand_Cat

            The issue here was the Right’s lawlessness.
            Some of these guys may be Dems, but aren’t part of “the “left,” a largely-non-existent faction in America. Most of the Dems are center-right; Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold were probably the last two who could accurately be called liberals, though I guess Al Franken may be.

          • mike

            Yet, they still have a “D” by their name, and the party is far from being clean and that is my point, you do not have the high ground all to yourselves.

            Just for fun I looked up the top 20 notable politicians convicted of crimes since 2001, 19 had party affiliation identified, 10 republicans and 9 democrats. Fed convictions by party back to Reagan and lo and behold there was a tie(PriceWaterhouse did not verify results).
            Again, your party is just not that innocence.

            But, Blagojevich, Kerner Jessie Jackson, Nagin all have big “D’s”.

          • Sand_Cat

            Yeah, I shouldn’t have butted in here. I think I said the Dems are far from saints, and I’ll say they increasingly seem more and more enthusiastic about giving – or selling – our government to Corporate America, my principal objection to the GOP.
            I think – or I thought – we were talking about party lawlessness, though I’m happy to see the small-time crooks on both sides get what they deserve. They aren’t a real danger to the country.

          • mike

            But yet Obama said no lobbyist in his administration while running for office. It sure isn’t the case now.


            How do you know they are not selling or giving??

            “Crooks”, Were they not members of a party???

          • Sand_Cat

            Come on: lobbyists wrote the laws during the Bush and Reagan administrations. Didn’t I say I don’t like the Dems much, and I didn’t vote for Obama in 2012? What more can I say?

          • mike

            “What more can I say”, I would say you had a brain, I didn’t either. 🙂

            But he promised not to bring in lobbyist!!! Yes, there have been lobbyist in every administration not just Republicans. And not in the Clinton administration?? As you say, Come on!!!!

          • Independent1

            Hey! you want to impress us with all this Conservative stuff, how about taking the challenge.

            Prove to us Conservativism works. Take the challenge, find some measure by which Conservative run states aren’t on average the worst in the nation.

            For example, we just got the results of a study today on Emergency Room care in America, and guess what, 8 of the 10 states with the worst ER care are you guessed it: GOP-run states.

            See this too (from a writer who lives in Mississippi):

            Which are the most corrupt states? GOP-run states.

            You can play this game all day. Look up who has the worst education, the highest crime, the highest unemployment… and on and on and on. Keep going, do it for yourself, don’t just trust me on it. Think of a thing, look it up, see who gets the worst of it. It’s almost always the states that vote for Republicans the most consistently, and thus live under their governance.

            The same group earned the same rating for a claim that 97 of the 100 poorest counties are in red states.

            And then there’s a recent study by Princeton economists Alan Binder and Mark Watson that finds the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. Under the likes of Nixon, Reagan and Bush they say we averaged an annual growth rate of 2.54 percent. Under the likes of Kennedy, Clinton and Obama? 4.35 percent.

            So come on Mike old boy, let’s see you come up with ANY CATEGORY, where GOP-run states don’t dominate the worst results category!!!!!!!

          • mike

            Why should I waste my time in responding to an individual who edited his comments once caught with misspoken comments.
            You changed the text showing a lack of character and being a dishonest person.
            Quit wasting my time.

          • Independent1

            What I figured chicken!! Nothing but a pure cop out.
            Prove you indicated to me that you saw that post before I changed it. You never sent me a comment!!

            You’re nothing but the typical FAKE CONSERVATIVE!!!

          • mike

            You edited your post after my post identified your error in wording.
            You are one dishonest person.

          • Independent1

            Just one more of your blatant lies!!!!!!!

          • mike

            No, you are a dishonest person. You changed the text, Period!!

          • Independent1

            You suggesting I changed it because of something YOU SAID – IS A BLATANT LIE!! THAT YOU CAN’T PROVE!!!

          • mike

            Not suggesting, accusing you of being dishonest.
            Pretty simple!!!

          • Independent1

            By the way chicken! Have you seen this from Forbes??

            Obama best economic president of modern times!

            Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.


          • mike

            How quickly will you change/edit this one????

          • Independent1

            Sandy, you didn’t vote for Obama in 2012 – the guy who a Forbes article just said has been the best modern time President with respect to our economy – he trumps Reagan in virtually any category you want to measure?? That’s a tough one:

            Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing


          • Sand_Cat

            I didn’t vote for Romney, either, if that’s the impression I gave. Somehow, every time I try to type his name, it comes out “Rmoney.” I wonder why.
            Economic performance is important, but there are more important things than money. Obama is also one of the best for NSA spying and a variety of other executive actions reminiscent of Bush, and – in spite of all the moaning here about his “extreme” agenda – it wasn’t “extreme” enough for me in important areas.
            I think I’ve said several times on this forum that – warts and all- he’s probably been the best president in my lifetime, but he seems intent on destroying that these days.
            [Edit] He and all too many Dems seem to me to be competing all too hard in the race to give the store away to corporate America; they seem a bit more reluctant than the GOP, but not all that much. I consider corporate personhood and money as speech to be the two greatest threats to our nation. [End-Edit]

          • Independent1

            Obama hasn’t always done things the way I would have liked to have seen it done either, but then, I don’t have the responsibility he does to work at not only protecting America but trying to help it prosper and help its citizens live better lives.

            I won’t get into a long drag out on the NSA, but I worked for the NSA for almost 9 years when I was in the service, doing what the NSA is doing here in America to try and protect Americans, overseas during the Vietnam era and cold war. And all I can say is that Americans who think that their privacy is being impeached upon, are totally delusional UNLESS they are involved in some form of nefarious activity, or mistakenly get tied into an investigation on people that are.

            Yes, the NSA is collecting a lot of data, but that is all it is is DATA, until THE NEED arises to use that data in trying to prevent an attack, or investigate some type of nefarious activity. You and I have a better probability of going to the moon than we have of anyone at the NSA actually looking at any of our emails, phone calls or whatever. Yes, they may do a quick perusal looking for key words or an activity patter, but that’s done via software, and unless we speak suspicious words or engage in some questionable activity, that’s the extent of it.

            I’m curious as to what you feel Obama has been doing lately that is “giving the store away”. Given the world-wide events that have gotten him nothing but 24/7 bashings from the GOP, I think he’s been doing pretty well in keeping his cool and done well in guiding the events that he can become involved in without getting us into another war. For example: have you heard a lot of war-ish rhetoric lately about Iran? I haven’t. And why, because without the war-like threats many wanted him to use against Iran, Iran has reworked all its weapons-grade uranium into a form that can only be used for peaceful purposes. What everyone in America thought a few months ago was an imminent war threat from Iran, has been defused. And it’s only a matter of time before Putin realizes that he’s way overstepped his bounds, and will backoff from Ukraine – without any war-like threats necessary.

            And I constantly get requests for support from progressives (the Dems) for their support in reversing Citizens United (I think they’re actually taking a vote on a bill reversing it today), and I don’t see where they’ve backed off on working to try and reverse a number of other repressive pieces of GOP legislation. Do you have a different take?

          • jamesowens

            simple solution -TERM LIMITS and/ or a 3 strike rule. politicians are elected on the public trust if they are proven by fact checkers to be lying about anything 3 times they are immediatly kicked from office and lose their bennies as they no longer have the public trust.
            they appled 3 strikes to criminals and if they lie to the public that is what they are CRIMINALS.

          • Sand_Cat

            I tend to think the right is lawless as a result of little things like all the support given to Cliven Bundy for stealing grazing rights and threatening Federal officers attempting to enforce the law. I think it lawless because many of its members stock up on guns to fight “government tyranny” when a black person is elected (which says something about racism, too). I think it lawless because it flourishes mostly in states which ratified Constitutional Amendments (after their treason for the preservation of slavery was defeated) saying freed slaves were citizens whose rights would be respected, then did the opposite for over a hundred years, and – I believe based on at least some evidence – still do. I distrust the right because they welcomed and encouraged the racist and lawless inhabitants of that region into the GOP as a result of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act while at the same time talking about “Law and Order” and claiming the left – there actually was an American Left back then – was lawless.
            I think the right is lawless because a number of the sponsors of the ID bills explicitly indicated what their purpose was, but the right pretends otherwise. I think the right is lawless because they immediately proved that the sections of the Voting Rights Act weren’t out of date by passing even stronger voter suppression actions when those sections were destroyed by a right-wing “activist” court which knows damn well that no adjustment such as they suggested would ever even come up in the House and would be filibustered and otherwise delayed and defeated in the Senate. And it isn’t just IDs: it’s cutting back voting hours, assigning one voting location in places unreachable by mass transit with 3-4 parking spaces to HUGE minority-dominated precincts when white precincts half the size had 4 or 5. I believe the right is lawless because they’re suing the president for exceeding his authority when their guys did it more, and they actually said the president should take executive action without Congress on several items the day after they announced the suit, and the president said he wanted their approval – you know, as required by the Constitution and the War Powers Act – on at least two occasions, after which they criticized him for not taking action, and continue to do so, but they never voted either time. Some of the right on this forum have cited his alleged violation of the War Powers Act as reason form impeachment, even though the GOP despises the Act and would never invoke it against a GOP president. I consider the right lawless because they always try to claim their wrongdoing is in the past – on those very rare occasions when they acknowledge wrongdoing – and that Dems shouldn’t live in the past, but their attitudes and actions have, if anything, gotten worse.
            I don’t have a problem with IDs for new voters, and agree with the person who suggested here that the IDs should be automatically given when one registers, but “free” IDs aren’t free if a person who has been registered for years and voted regularly suddenly has to have one, but must gather all sorts of documentation, all of which costs time and money they may not have and some of which may not exist, especially when the “need” for these IDs is obviously driven by people who won’t admit their candidate lost for real in 2012, but was beaten by “voter fraud” for which the evidence is some guy from Chicago they saw on TV bragging he voted ten times, a guy they wouldn’t otherwise trust to even give the correct time of day. I think the right lawless because large numbers of registered, eligible voters were removed from Florida voter rolls illegally by one of the candidates’ brother and that candidate’s state committee chairman in 2000, and – in addition – there were reports of intimidation of minority voters by state police, and it’s clear the right is afraid the left is as lawless as they are. As I said before, it’s also clear the right is very much afraid that a Latino-Black majority will treat white people as badly as white people have treated them.
            The Dems are from from saints, and I didn’t want to vote for Obama in 2000 because he ratified the GOP’s lawless actions by voting for the FISA act, and I didn’t vote for him in 2012 for a variety of reasons, but I still say he’s the best president since Eisenhower (actually, the antics of the Dulles brothers call even that into question), and I must honestly say I’m terrified what will happen if the right wins in 2016, not to mention this year.

          • mike

            I believe almost all you have said is pure rubbish.
            I see the great divide is growing under a president who wants the country divided for political reasons.
            I see a president who is out of his league and has done nothing to improve the racial relationships.
            I see any person to the right is considered a lawless person by you.
            I see if one is not to the left in your eyes one is a bad person.
            I see if a person has an honest disagreement with the left then they will demonized.
            I see that all I do in my community I am still a lawless person because of my political beliefs.
            I believe you are absolutely wrong.

          • Sand_Cat

            Disqus seems to have misplaced my answer. The gist was
            1) Your imputation of evil motives to the president is the demonization of which you accuse me in spades. The right has demonized us liberals for decades and accused us of treason, attempting to undermine
            2) There is at least as much evidence – I think a lot more, but feel free to disagree – the GOP wants a divided country for political reasons.,

          • mike

            I don’t believe what you said is demonstrably true, just my thoughts.
            And left has not demonized the right? Come on!!!

            The Brown incident is far from over and I will wait for all the facts. I believe that 99.8% of police are good but this blanket attack is harmful.

          • Sand_Cat

            THe left barely exists anymore. I know you don’t agree, but I think

          • mike

            I live in the deep south and have great relationships with many blacks but since Obama came on board everyone is walking on egg shells. Once good friends who enjoyed each others company are lacking trust between each other like never before. One of my best friends for 60 years has not spoken to me for 5 years, at one of our get togethers I told him I didn’t trust him or like the way he wanted to take the country, he disagreed and about a year later after trying to ignore politics he finally called me a racist, 60 years never an argument about politics even though he was a D and me an R, I asked him to take it back, he wouldn’t. I went to my minister friend, who is black, and he said forgive him. I said I couldn’t until he apologized. I am still waiting. His cousin came to me and said I was his best friend and I asked her to tell him all I wanted was an apology. So very sad!!! We grew up together and it is all gone. To this day I wonder if the whole relationship was nothing more than a charade on his part.

            With the Al Sharptons of the world I would imagine they do feel “us against them.” I disagree about the lunatics. if they have did wrong, they should pay the price.

          • Sand_Cat

            Everyone with strong feelings is accused of being polarizing.
            I may have lost the friendship of my relative over my “knee-jerk liberal reaction,” though he obviously overlooked what I consider his knee-jerk conservative law enforcement reaction.
            As for racism, I believe it is embedded in our culture, and as for me, my mother was an old-fashioned southerner, and I still have to fight the predispositions she drummed into me from very early childhood.
            Just read some of the “conservative” posts here: theydescribe “poor people”

          • mike

            Can’t totally disagree with your thoughts.
            The wealthy philanthropy giving is in the billions every year. Chronicle of Philanthropy.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Generally when people complain about being called ‘racist’ it’s because they are. Just sayin’.

          • mike

            Only in your debilitated mind.

          • jamesowens

            well said ty you speak for me also

          • Sand_Cat

            To make a straightforward answer:
            1) The Voting Rights Act was written to stop intimidation and voter suppression against minorities, because that was the principal (or only) type known at the time, but I’m sure Congress did not intend to let such activities be undertaken by anyone. If the language of the bill implies otherwise, then it should be amended.
            2) Other than difficulties with enforcement – i.e., someone could disrupt legitimate politicking near the polls by calling in false “intimidation” claims – I believe such activities should constitute a felony and subject suspected perpetrators to immediate arrest and removal from the scene. Again, there are practical difficulties with this approach, and it also seems unlikely election or law enforcement officials would be charged, even if they were in violation.
            3) I would like to think that an administration for which I voted in 2008, at least, would not ignore violations, regardless of possible hypocrisy on the part of complainants. It certainly does appear that officials in the Justice Department did not fulfill their obligations, and – if so – they should be fired and publicly condemned.
            I hope we can agree on this much.

          • mike

            I think you are under estimating the American people. The vast, vast majority do believe in equal rights and want good and fair elections.
            The American people are good people who want all to reach the level of success in their lives that they wish.
            The DOJ lawyer(white) who put the case together resigned after DOJ threw it out, with one little exception,
            You seem to have forgotten, no one gets fired in the federal govt., they just get transferred or retire.

            As to the over all content of your post I have little to no problem. Now this is scary!!!
            Take care!

          • jamesowens

            why has voting note been changed to call in like a bank — dial a 1-800 number put in your ssn then your voter registration # and push 1 for candidate a and 2 for candidate b. simple fat and eliminates all the crooked polling rules

        • jamesowens

          lol lov it

      • Yeah, all four of them.

        Shame on them for standing out in the open being so black like that.

  • jointerjohn

    For decades republicans have been elected by the democrats who stay home on election day. They just used to be more discreet about it.

  • James M. Vandeventer

    “There he goes again” as Reagan would say, talking out of his arse! Why would Republicans be afraid of REGISTERING PEOPLE TO VOTE? Because everyone sees their BS!

  • Buford2k11

    Now, where is the connection to all this voting controversy…The numbers are out on the Citizens United impact on the elections…advantage GOP/baggers…Voter ID laws…advantage gop/baggers…look to the R controlled states to see the pattern…ALEC, and the Koch boys have been busy…

  • As well they should. I just look at the response gotten from my own blog ([email protected]) & trying to keep me out of the workforce & under the thumb of surveillance, thinking I’m about to do something ‘criminal’, when all I’m doing is advocating for THIS!!! An expanded Democracy is only good for those who see the ADDED VALUE to a BLENDED, cohesive & DIVERSE Civic CULTURE!!! They can’t get along w/folks. That’s their problem. There’s still room for conservatives, but there’s also RULES!!! It’s HERE that they’re most dysfunctional. But, we get a Liberal/Progressive Congress, along w/a Liberal/Progressive Senate, we get Single Payer Health care & they can get all the mental health services they need – at EVEN LOWER COST THAN OBAMA CARE!!!

    • jamesowens

      it is witnessed by the fact they only look at sites they agree with and continue to watch faux and believe the lies of libaugh-beck and doushy.crazy old rednecks scared of anything and everything except others just like themselves.

  • TMZ1928

    Will the Democrats stop at nothing to get elected? The Obama administration is orchestrating and funding an invasion of millions of illegal aliens from Central American countries and secretly depositing them all over the country, with the US taxpayer funding those airline and bus tickets. The illegals are immediately provided with food, clothing, medical care, housing and even toys for the kiddies. Local school districts are forced to provide education for children who don’t speak English. And while providing illegals with drivers licenses, there just happens to be an opportunity to register to vote. The Democrats are turning the US into a third world country for the sole purpose of elevating the percentage of the population that is dependent upon hand-outs that will guarantee themselves votes. It’s shameful while millions of US citizens are out of work and need assistance themselves. And Obama was lying when he recently told us that the invasion of our southern border has stopped. It continues on, it’s just that there are fewer unaccompanied children and more of the current invaders are adults and families.

    • dtgraham

      “The Democrats are turning the U.S. into a third world country for the sole purpose of elevating the percentage of the population that is dependent upon hand-outs that will guarantee themselves votes.”

      Ok, am I parodying you or are you parodying my parody?

    • charleo1

      All that would be a reason for outrage, if most of it wasn’t a lie. And,
      the rest, as the in case of Central American refugees, the result of following current immigration laws. First of all, Obama is not, “secretly,” doing anything. Current law mandates the requirement to vaccinate, provide food, shelter, and healthcare, to immigrants in the custody of the Federal Gov. and to school the children of those illegally in country. All laws, and requirements established long before Barack Obama finished elementary school. The question of allowing the undocumented drivers licenses, is a strictly a State issue. And if
      done, is more a matter relating to public safety, and uninsured drivers. And, does in no instance qualify the non-citizen holders to vote. If I was you, I would look at the Conservative Right’s record on
      immigration policy, if you want to find the roots of our current crisis.
      Reagan granted amnesty to approx. 4 million undocumented, and
      left a door open wide enough to encourage another approx.12 million
      to immigrate in, over the next 20 years. To his credit, George W. Bush
      called upon his Party’s leadership in Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. The bipartisan effort was scuttled by his own Party’s refusal to enact a verifiable system of work permits, and require all foreign nationals to register. Too much of a burden on the business owners, they said. Too expensive, they carped. And objected on the grounds it would increase the price of vegetables, and hurt the poor. Yes, Republicans can care about the poor, when it fits their agenda. It’s not interesting that that AG Holder is pushing for the legalization of millions, because he’s doing no such thing. So, another lie. The fact that Obama is drawing protesters in front of the WH. due to his aggressive deportation policies, flies in the face of such conspiratorial narratives as you list. Shameful, would be a fitting description of a Republican House so divided against itself, they have no immigration policy, but to blame the lack of one, on others.

    • Barbara Morgan

      Voter IDs doesn’t stop voter fraud especially when it come to Republicans voters, Ann Coulter voted twice once in New York and once in Fla in the same presidential election, a backer of Scott Walker of Wisconsin voted 5 times for Walker in the same election and then when to Indiana and voted for a Republican there during the same election, he used. his own name and ID in Wisconsin then his son’s name in Indiana. In the 2012 elections a corporation hired by the Fla. Republican party to register voters changed peoples party from D or I to R,and or they threw away the registrations of people that had put D and or I on their registrations or they told liesto people and said they were doing a survey of Republican voters not registering people to vote if they learned ahead of time they weren’t Republicans or Tea party supporters. Let’s not forget the Republican Representative in Wisconsin that used a list of people that had signed his petition to be on the ballot two years earlier but hadn’t signed one in 2012 for that same reason, he thought he could add them to the ones that had signed so he could show that he had over the number of signatures he needed. One last case of voter in Ga. When a man went to vote he was told he had voted the week before and they had proof he had, he showed the same picture ID he was showing then. The man couldn’t have voted on the day their records showed he did, he was in the hospital for medical tests and wasn’t able to leave the hospital and he proved that fact. Someone took his ID while he knocked out, went and voted and returned it his wallet before he woke up. So much for picture IDs stopping voter fraud especially since if there is fraud most of it is done pre election, throwing away voter registrations,or in the voting booths by use of rigged voting machines or when the votes are suppose to be counted get lost or a bag of uncounted votes appears out of nowhere.

    • Taz202

      You are sick in the head!

    • jamesowens

      dont forgetthe free cadillac car if they bring 3 of their friends and free bread sticks at olive garden. you are 1 mislead paranoid fool.

  • howa4x

    Republican’s can’t win the argument anymore so they want to suppress the vote instead. People want everything that republicans are against so naturally they will loose national elections unless the moderate wing of the party asserts itself and the mainstream of the party kicks out the Tea party and evangelicals who represent a minority of the general election vote. Once freed of the yoke of these two groups the republicans can be competitive with out voter suppression.

  • pitch1934

    The Philly Panthers were laughable. As for the pukes fear of voters, it is understandable. They do not represent the hopes and aspirations of the majority in this country. We can’t all be rich, so they keep telling us that the other guy is stealing our money. They just point in the wrong direction to show us the thieves.

  • terry b

    The GOP has gotten famous for doing whatever they can do to suppress voting rights. Particularly minorities and the poor. Since nationally democratic voters surpass GOP voters it is only natural to make any attempt to stop many of those people from voting.

  • Allan Richardson

    In the debate about capital punishment, the question is often raised: which is more important, to execute every single guilty person, or to be sure NOT to execute even one innocent person? From the way that issue has been argued, conservatives seem to be willing to execute “a few” innocent people by mistake just to avoid letting a guilty person live one day longer than absolutely necessary, while liberals seem to be willing to let a large number of guilty people go free, or go to jail for life, rather than commit the tragic mistake of executing an innocent person.

    I have not heard anyone explicitly voice a similar question about voting fraud, so here goes: in terms of the meta-morality of democracy, how many LEGAL voters should be disenfranchised in order to prevent ONE fraudulent vote? And how should disenfranchised qualified voters be compensated? Or are their votes “not really important” enough to be protected? It would seem that Republican office holders USUALLY want to restrict anyone they think MAY be committing fraud from voting, even if thousands, even millions, of legally qualified voters are prevented from voting as an “unintended” consequence (and I have my doubts about how “unintended” that consequence is), while Democratic office holders USUALLY want to allow as many votes as possible, and point out how rare voter fraud is, and how inconsequential allowing a little more of it would be.

    Undeniably, the different outcomes of these different philosophies ARE reflected in the possible outcomes of THIS year’s elections. However, at some time in the future, this condition might be reversed. If so, will Republican suddenly want to increase turnout by reversing their current policies, and Democrats suddenly want to get tough on fraud? Not too likely, since that would go against their respective philosophies. As for myself, as a progressive voter, I believe that all legal votes should be protected regardless of who is elected as a result.

  • ConstitutionalAmerican2016

    The GOP’s fears have nothing to do with the legitimate turnout of real Americans. Their fears are grounded in Obama and Holder’s attempts, bolstered by Johnson’s efforts, to flood America with illegal aliens. Democratically controlled states like California, Colorado, New York, Massachusetts, etc. are having “accidents” where these illegal aliens are getting valid state ID cards which would allow them to vote. So the threat of voter fraud is real (http //www aim org/special-report/voter-fraud-an-existential-threat-to-america/). There have been Democrats arrested in Wisconsin; the well publicized case in Ohio of the woman voting six times; nearly 50,000 voters who in Maryland and Virginia who cross states lines to vote in each state. Holder is devoting the energy of the DOJ to fight voters having to show a valid ID card because he knows what these immoral fools have been doing. America needs to wake up and push these clowns from office. This is the same Obama administration that is seeking to erode your Constitutional rights; kill your right to free speech; attack your right to due process under the law; defeat your ability to claim the 5th Amendment protections; they are feeding the intelligence agencies desires to spy on Americans; Obama is attacking Christianity while pushing a pro-Islamic agenda in direct violation of the Constitution. Obama is an Alinsky snake in the garb of a 21st Century person … I don’t know what else to call him because he is not an elitist. He is not a real man. He is not a diplomat. He is a failed wannabe. He is angry now because he knows it, and that history is going to judge him that way.