We need to be on the look out for serious Democrat/Communist fraud in the Texas elections

[W54/XM-388]

In my opinion, it seems quite possible here in Texas the local Communist party that masquerades as "democrats" is preparing to go all out on fraud to try to win.
For the past month I have been getting spam texts from various Democrat party activists to a company cell phone not actually in my name, asking if they can please order me a mail in ballot to make sure I can vote for their lying Robert guy who pretends to be called "Beto".

This is a bit different than previous elections & I'm pretty sure they are taking their proven ballot stuffing scheme from local city voting to state wide voting to try to win at any cost.

I'm not sure how we are going to help fight against this or prepare for it, but hopefully somebody is on the ball looking for a way to hit them over the head.

I've also noticed recently that you can tell who is a lying Communist bastard pretty easily from just the campaign signs.

If they have their full first & last name & a picture of them... at least they want you to know who they are.
If they just have their first name... probably a muslim trying to sneak in.
If they just have a black and white little sign with a single "culturally appropriated" nickname that matches nothing of their name and race.. They are lying Communist sacks of garbage trying to pretend to be something other than yet another pasty white faced Communist coward.

Also if they put the trigger word "for ALL of xxx" then the possibility of being a communist is hugely increased.



Have I mentioned recently how much I despise Communists?

 

[ArmyJerry]

meh
no difference between them. time to get the show started.

 

[Srikaleak]

I agree with ArmyJerry
https://www.politifact.com/texas/ar...uz-summons-enclosed-envelopes-might-deceive-/

Ted Cruz is also a former Harvard debate team member.

 

[Fig]

Yea me too.

 

[308pirate]

All I know is that I'm diverting funding that was going to sporting clays into more carbine and handgun training........

 

[XLR308]

Valid drivers license and a social security number to be verified for all who vote otherwise fuck off.

 

[Mwalex]

Actually, you should only be able to vote if you own property. No skin in the game, you don’t get to play.

A few weeks ago I got a call from the Beto who-the-fuck-ever campaign that is opposing Ted Cruz. I told the caller I would never vote for a liberal and they have not called back since.

I would agree that there could be some shenanigans pulled by the Demokrats. They are desperate to flip Texas.

 

[SilentStalkr]

You guys know damn well, if the entire country gets won over by dems, that ain’t nobody going to do a damn thing. This country will just continue to go down the damn drain and anyone that tries to go against the grain will just be told to deal with it or will he made an example of and dealt with. You are also acting like there is any damn difference between the dems and the Republicans. They are one in the same, they just play different on the playground. They all go out and drink together as besties at night when the tv crew ain’t on them. Unless every patriot stands together we all fall. And most people won’t put their money where their mouth is.

If you are waiting for a spark, it’s already come and gone. The republic is already gone. That should be blatantly obvious with this BS hearing that is supposedly going to happen on Monday with Kavanaugh and this damn Ford chick the fact that we are even letting this happen should be clear evidence that it is gone. How in anyone’s right mind should this be allowed much less hold up a USSC Justice confirmation? Nothing can be proven or disproven. It’s a complete sham and a clear waste of everyone’s time and taxpayer money. Nope, sorry, unless everyone in DC is replaced and rule of law actually applied then the republic is gone.

 

[Fig]

I agree @SilentStalkr . But, you’re assuming “we” have to “do something”. The right (actual liberals who believe in individual liberty) don’t get violent, and especially not when there is still rule of law and a chance to restore The Republic peacefully. So you’re right that “we” aren’t going to “do” anything but talk at this point.

The asumption that the left won’t get violent when they don’t get their way is a false asumption, as they’ve never failed to become violent. They will get violent first...without question, and it will be a case of whether we defend ourselves and then put them down. They’re the ones who want to destroy our system and eliminate our liberty. They are the attackers, and I think you’re foolish if you don’t believe they intend to attack.

What would it take for you to make an unprovable and totally unsubstantiated accusation against someone you know, or a coworker, with the intention of destroying their carrear and ruining their reputation? You would have to hate that person a lot. You would have to believe they’re evil on an existential level to justify something like that in your head.

We are dealing with fanatics for whom the ends justify the means. They literally have a form of mild mental illness where they can’t differentiate fact from fiction, and they lie to themselves willingly. They may seem retarded, but they have a disconnect from reality wherein they can justify anything and their shamelessness is a function of hypocrisy on an, again, mentally ill level.

The get violent every single time. This is why they want our guns so badly it drives them nuts because they are afraid of us. They are always afraid of free people, because they know every one of us is worth ten of their pressed thugs. But make no mistake, they’re fanatics. This is why I know we will win. Fanatics may have a strategy, but their fanaticism blinds them to sound tactics, and they invariably make a lot of stupid mistakes, because when something doesn’t fit with their preconceived notions they ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist.

So yea, we’re not going to DO anything, but I guarantee you we will defend ours, and counterattack once they commence hostilities. We have to keep our firearms though. If they get those we really are done, and their totalitarianism will go unchecked because removing checks and balances is their primary objective, and why they are shamelessly lying and cheating to destroy Kavanaugh.

 

[SilentStalkr]

I agree @SilentStalkr . But, you’re assuming “we” have to “do something”. The right (actual liberals who believe in individual liberty) don’t get violent, and especially not when there is still rule of law and a chance to restore The Republic peacefully. So you’re right that “we” aren’t going to “do” anything but talk at this point.

The asumption that the left won’t get violent when they don’t get their way is a false asumption, as they’ve never failed to become violent. They will get violent first...without question, and it will be a case of whether we defend ourselves and then put them down. They’re the ones who want to destroy our system and eliminate our liberty. They are the attackers, and I think you’re foolish if you don’t believe they intend to attack.

What would it take for you to make an unprovable and totally unsubstantiated accusation against someone you know, or a coworker, with the intention of destroying their carrear and ruining their reputation? You would have to hate that person a lot. You would have to believe they’re evil on an existential level to justify something like that in your head.

We are dealing with fanatics for whom the ends justify the means. They literally have a form of mild mental illness where they can’t differentiate fact from fiction, and they lie to themselves willingly. They may seem retarded, but they have a disconnect from reality wherein they can justify anything and their shamelessness is a function of hypocrisy on an, again, mentally ill level.

The get violent every single time. This is why they want our guns so badly it drives them nuts because they are afraid of us. They are always afraid of free people, because they know every one of us is worth ten of their pressed thugs. But make no mistake, they’re fanatics. This is why I know we will win. Fanatics may have a strategy, but their fanaticism blinds them to sound tactics, and they invariably make a lot of stupid mistakes, because when something doesn’t fit with their preconceived notions they ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist.

So yea, we’re not going to DO anything, but I guarantee you we will defend ours, and counterattack once they commence hostilities. We have to keep our firearms though. If they get those we really are done, and their totalitarianism will go unchecked because removing checks and balances is their primary objective, and why they are shamelessly lying and cheating to destroy Kavanaugh.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the way I see it, they are winning with both being violent and being nonviolent. They’ve been violent and thrown tantrums on more than one occasion. Hell, even torn down parts of cities and yet nothing was done. They go on with election tampering and who knows what else at this point and yet they still are unchecked. And they are doing a pretty decent job at keeping on the offensive to take your guns, whether by false flags or not, I see more people succumbing to their ideal that no civilian should own them. That my friend is downright scary and is crucial to “the patriots” defense of themselves as you so pointed out. Little by little I see them continuing to erode our rights, freedoms and grab people to their insanity. I hope I’m wrong, but as of right now I see a very small beacon of hope.

PS The checks and balances have long been removed, which is why it has gotten this far gone already. Seems to me that there is a ruling class disguised as politicians, justices and so on. They all seem to work together to me, instead of checking each other’s power. See I think that’s where the founders fucked up. I don’t think they ever foreseen a time at which all the powers in this country would work together for nefarious purposes. Once those in power figured out that together they would be pretty much unstoppable we were screwed. Then when those in power figured out they could make major money from companies at the same time we were doubly fucked. Yes, I believe we will protect what is ours, but as far as I can see the republic is gone. I don’t think there is any getting it back. Even if by some way we do get it back, how do you keep this from happening again?

 

[308pirate]

Valid drivers license passport and a social security number to be verified for all who vote otherwise fuck off.

Driver licenses have lost all meaning as far as proving both citizenship and driving ability

 

[308pirate]

Actually, you should only be able to vote if you own property. No skin in the game, you don’t get to play

+1

A few weeks ago I got a call from the Beto who-the-fuck-ever campaign that is opposing Ted Cruz.

Oh I would have had fun with that one

 

[Steel+Killer]

Actually, you should only be able to vote if you own property. No skin in the game, you don’t get to play.

I disagree with that. How about if you are on any government assistance you don’t get to vote. There are a lot of hard working people that pay taxes that are trying to save money to buy a house, but when a third of their paycheck has to help pay for Uncle Samta Claus giving away all the free shit to people that don’t work and all the fat cats in DC it gets harder and harder. The fucks in DC both republicans and democrats care about one thing neither side wants to lose control of the public piggy bank they get rich off. That’s why we have this fucking elaborate charade of a fucking tax code. These assholes know once they get to DC they are going to get on the gravy train and be set for life.

 

[Mwalex]

I disagree with that. How about if you are on any government assistance you don’t get to vote. There are a lot of hard working people that pay taxes that are trying to save money to buy a house, but when a third of their paycheck has to help pay for Uncle Samta Claus giving away all the free shit to people that don’t work and all the fat cats in DC it gets harder and harder. The fucks in DC both republicans and democrats care about one thing neither side wants to lose control of the public piggy bank they get rich off. That’s why we have this fucking elaborate charade of a fucking tax code. These assholes know once they get to DC they are going to get on the gravy train and be set for life.

I appreciate your perspective but still adhere to my post. “On government assistance” - no you should not be allowed to vote without owning property. That very example is what has helped skewed the voter base to the current train wreck, in that I am including handouts which are slightly different but assistance all the same. People on the dime will vote to stay on that dime. IF a person is physically disabled and cannot work that could be a caveat in my proposal. All others are SOL.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

So what if I pay more in business taxes than you pay in property taxes....do I get to vote then?
While your perspective sounds good....it leaves a lot to be "caveated" and that is what got us into the situation we are in now......

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Mwalex]

Hi,

So what if I pay more in business taxes than you pay in property taxes....do I get to vote then?
While your perspective sounds good....it leaves a lot to be "caveated" and that is what got us into the situation we are in now......

Sincerely,
Theis

Do you own the business?

 

[THEIS]

Do you own the business?

Hi,
Hard to pay business taxes without owning one lolol.
Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Mwalex]

Hi,
Hard to pay business taxes without owning one lolol.
Sincerely,
Theis

Then you own property so you fit into my original statement.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Ok so a business formation that leases physical property is considered "property"?
So a car would be considered property too?
Your premise sounds great on the surface but when getting to the details of it...it has to get caveated to death to make it function.

Edited to add: Lets say you have a big house but the bank really "owns" it because you are paying a note.....Do you still "own property" and get to vote or does the bank get your vote because they actually "Own" the property?

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[308pirate]

Hi,

Ok so a business formation that leases physical property is considered "property"?
So a car would be considered property too?
Your premise sounds great on the surface but when getting to the details of it...it has to get caveated to death to make it function.

Edited to add: Lets say you have a big house but the bank really "owns" it because you are paying a note.....Do you still "own property" and get to vote or does the bank get your vote because they actually "Own" the property?

Sincerely,
Theis

It does get confusing doesn't it?

What about someone who, for one of many reasons, decides not to go into debt to buy residential real estate and instead rents or leases his home? I don't know of a single landlord who will not amortize the property's taxes through rent.

And what if that renter is otherwise a productive member of society, paying income/business/capital gains taxes?

 

[W54/XM-388]

The original issue is one of having the most skin in the game.

If you own a property, either your residence or business, then most likely you tend to be concerned about a longer term situation knowing that you are either stuck in the mess you create, or if you want to leave, have to hopefully have not created too much mess so you can still get a good price for your place.

Having a loan on your house does not change the ownership, if you look at the actual paperwork, you own your house, but the bank has a lien that says if you don't pay them as promised, they can file with the courts to collect their security in the loan (usually the property). So a house being paid off is still "owned" by the home owner.

If you own a business, where do you sleep at night? If you have enough funds to own a business, then you might eventually also possibly be able to own a house if you chose to and that is an incentive to get people to put down long term roots.

Even if you are a good productive member of society and such, if you are a renter, you don't have as much skin in the game as if things go bad you can just pick up sticks and leave without much problem or consequence (especially if you leave properly at the end of your lease). If you own your place then you will tend to see the need to fight as hard as you can for what you feel is good even if it's a lot of work.

In addition if you own your property, you most likely have a much better understanding of how much taxes the government is sticking their hand into your wallet to collect. Vs, most renters don't know and don't care & are happy to vote for tax hikes to pay for "stuff" they want short term.

That's not to say that property ownership is the best way to qualify for voting, as when that was the case people still got around it by buying fake little plots of land to claim the ability to vote and such, but the basic principle is worth discussing. Where I live, as the apartments started going up and more renters poured in, they all start voting for higher taxes that they don't see and don't care about for fun things like 70 million high school football stadiums and such as well as voting in a bunch of "Progressive" communist sympathizers who want to get all in your business, the ratings of the schools went down, once again because you have people with no long term skin in the game.

The problem with home ownership now is the Banks basically have a monopoly on it for most and it's a game for them that they play backed by credit your taxes backstop. Perhaps if we got the banks and money lenders completely kicked out of their monopoly, we could come up with a different system that lets everybody who wants have a house they can afford. Just about everybody finds a way to have something to live in and most of the time around here it's actually cheaper to pay the mortgage on a house than to rent a half decent apartment. (Some states such as CA or NY etc, it's near impossible for most to own a house due to the way the government set things up, so they have to rent).

 

[308pirate]

I just can't sign off on a plan that disenfranchises people who contribute to society more than they take just because they don't have a mortgage or a deed to a piece of land.

I've been paying income taxes since 1984. I was also on the US Navy's payroll from 1984 to 1994. I didn't purchase my first home since 1992. Nobody was going to tell me I couldn't cast a vote until I got a mortgage.

That's a fucking non-starter in my world.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

So we are back to caveating a bill to death...shit the caveats in such bill would be longer than the Bill of Rights lol...

So the Military member that lives on base does not get to vote because:
A. They do not "own property"?
B. They have no long term skin in the game where they are currently stationed because they will be moving in a few years?

Where does it say in the Constitution that I must live in same place for over 10 years in order for me to vote?
What if we "Caveated" the 2nd Amendment to state only FFL holders can legally own firearms?

Edited To Add:
For a group that is so "Supportive" of the Constitution, some of you are real eager to "revise" parts of it you think need changing but yet you wonder how in the hell the other side can even think of "revising" parts they think need changing........

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[W54/XM-388]

I just can't sign off on a plan that disenfranchises people who contribute to society more than they take just because they don't have a mortgage or a deed to a piece of land.
That's a fucking non-starter in my world.

That's why answers to major issues affecting how society operates are rarely simple, cut an dry.

It's a good starting point for discussion on the reasons why & how it would work, how it would be abused & then start looking for a better solution.
Just about every idea good and bad has been tried throughout history and a lot of it is figuring out what works for the situation and people you are dealing with.

 

[Mwalex]

Hi,

Ok so a business formation that leases physical property is considered "property"?
So a car would be considered property too?
Your premise sounds great on the surface but when getting to the details of it...it has to get caveated to death to make it function.

Edited to add: Lets say you have a big house but the bank really "owns" it because you are paying a note.....Do you still "own property" and get to vote or does the bank get your vote because they actually "Own" the property?

Sincerely,
Theis

Wow. okay, you seem to be either missing the entire point because of a lack of detail on my part or you want to be difficult for some reason.

It only has to be "caveated" because individuals look for wiggle room or they are stupid. As far as the bank owning the home, this is you making a conscious choice to be a pain and that really should not need to be defined.

Let me take a step back and take a different swipe at what I said. Property - land or a home or business. Something that tethers an individual to a community and ensure that they contribute more than they extract.

Now, if this concept is to exclusionary for some folks I would offer another option. ONLY people that pay taxes get to vote AND by taxes I mean income tax. If you file and get all your tax back then you do not pay taxes therefore you do not get to vote. No taxes paid means no skin in the game means you have no say so in how those dollars get spent. I hope that does not need to be defined.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Hi,
So we are back to caveating a bill to death...shit the caveats in such bill would be longer than the Bill of Rights lol...

So the Military member that lives on base does not get to vote because:

It makes for good discussions, while nobody is talking about wanting military members not to be able to vote, something to think about for the whole argument sake is looking at it from another view point to see the other angles.

In the book "Starship Troopers" which is quite popular in military circles, the author portrays a somewhat militaristic world in which voting was restricted to those who had served in the military or civil service, completed their service and a few who were granted the vote for services to the country on the civilian side (much like the presidential medals given for meritorious civilian service to the country). Everybody had the right at any time to sign up for service if they wanted to as well as the ability to call it quits and crash out if they wanted (but only 1 chance).
However it was clearly stated that while serving in the military or other civil service, as part of your required term for the franchise, you couldn't vote. You could only vote after you completed your service... since it was said that otherwise it would be crazy for the soldiers to be able to vote for who was going to lead them & what wars they were going to fight.

Not to say that is how things should be done, but it was a very interesting discussion and worth batting back and forth.

As always one dogmatic principle rarely works out for the good, but taking many ideas and trying to come up with the best is very useful. Just as long as you also play the how will somebody evil turn this into a nightmare once we retire game.

 

[Mwalex]

Hi,

So we are back to caveating a bill to death...shit the caveats in such bill would be longer than the Bill of Rights lol...

So the Military member that lives on base does not get to vote because:
A. They do not "own property"?
B. They have no long term skin in the game where they are currently stationed because they will be moving in a few years?

Where does it say in the Constitution that I must live in same place for over 10 years in order for me to vote?
What if we "Caveated" the 2nd Amendment to state only FFL holders can legally own firearms?

Edited To Add:
For a group that is so "Supportive" of the Constitution, some of you are real eager to "revise" parts of it you think need changing but yet you wonder how in the hell the other side can even think of "revising" parts they think need changing........

Sincerely,
Theis

Good point and should be considered but how are these few points "over caveating" anything. If anyone thinks that then they are being lazy.

I laugh about you "revision of the Constitution" comments because they are the reason we are at this point in history. People that have no vested interest in this country, other than a handout, are having a disproportionate effect on how the country is being ran.

 

[Mwalex]

I just can't sign off on a plan that disenfranchises people who contribute to society more than they take just because they don't have a mortgage or a deed to a piece of land.

I've been paying income taxes since 1984. I was also on the US Navy's payroll from 1984 to 1994. I didn't purchase my first home since 1992. Nobody was going to tell me I couldn't cast a vote until I got a mortgage.

That's a fucking non-starter in my world.

No one could tell you you could not vote because that was the system you were use to. If the system was based on property ownership then you would not have been allowed to vote, pure and simple. The idea to deepen a persons investment into the "system" so they are more effected by their votes.

Also, see my other post regarding taxes.

 

[Mwalex]

I just can't sign off on a plan that disenfranchises people who contribute to society more than they take just because they don't have a mortgage or a deed to a piece of land.

I've been paying income taxes since 1984. I was also on the US Navy's payroll from 1984 to 1994. I didn't purchase my first home since 1992. Nobody was going to tell me I couldn't cast a vote until I got a mortgage.

That's a fucking non-starter in my world.

Let me add that the property rule would exclude me from voting. I have been an apartment dweller my entire life and I am getting to the age where I am thinking about possibly buying a house. Because I do not own a house I pay a ton of income tax and am happy to pay my share. I do not have an issue with something like a property rule because I am not above rules that make things better AND that might have pushed me into a house sooner.

 

[pmclaine]

I appreciate your perspective but still adhere to my post. “On government assistance” - no you should not be allowed to vote without owning property. That very example is what has helped skewed the voter base to the current train wreck, in that I am including handouts which are slightly different but assistance all the same. People on the dime will vote to stay on that dime. IF a person is physically disabled and cannot work that could be a caveat in my proposal. All others are SOL.

People on the dime generally dont vote unless the body hunter shows up with a bus and offers them a pre filled in ballot and a sandwich.

From what I see in my affluent eastern seaboard suburban existence is affluent people voting tax over rides because they are too stupid to realize that "its for the children" really means "for the legacy to be left upon the death of the rich politicians children at the expense of your children".

 

[Spooky68]

Are you proposing an amendment to the Constitution?

 

[Mwalex]

Are you proposing an amendment to the Constitution?

If that question is for me then no, I am not proposing anything, just thinking out loud.

 

[Mwalex]

People on the dime generally dont vote unless the body hunter shows up with a bus and offers them a pre filled in ballot and a sandwich.

From what I see in my affluent eastern seaboard suburban existence is affluent people voting tax over rides because they are too stupid to realize that "its for the children" really means "for the legacy to be left upon the death of the rich politicians children at the expense of your children".

You could be right about the body hunters but that seems to be happening more often as of late and how do you suppose those individuals vote? If you might consider saying Demokratic then that goes along with my point. I do appreciate your comment on their voting frequency though.

 

[pmclaine]

You could be right about the body hunters but that seems to be happening more often as of late and how do you suppose those individuals vote? If you might consider saying Demokratic then that goes along with my point. I do appreciate your comment on their voting frequency though.

I just wish we had as stringent a process to vote as we do to ensure no one under 21 buys cigarettes in Massachusetts........everyone gets positively ID'd.

 

[anon]

The driver's license office on Hwy 3 just north of Ellington has had an overflow crowd for months every day that I have gone by. Motor voter has been law since what, '93 or '95?

 

[pmclaine]

The driver's license office on Hwy 3 just north of Ellington has had an overflow crowd for months every day that I have gone by. Motor voter has been law since what, '93 or '95?

Yep Bill Clintons gift to us.

Still though the way it is supposed to be, especially now with real ID is that at least the applicant is confirmed to be a citizen.

but.....

Some of these idiotic liberal states are issuing off the books IDs "as a convenience" to citizens that find it too onerous to provide docs to prove their citizenship.

Its a load of crap the only reason to resist presenting ID is that you do not want integrity in voting.