I believe this sort of thing exists, but it hardly represents the common welfare recipient, but is used to stigmatize all of them. As a matter of national policy making I'd say it's been grossly over represented to make an easy target for politicians twisting racial stereotypes to get the backing of angry voters.Welfare queens aren't necessarily committing welfare fraud. Maybe that's where your confusion is. Abusing the system simply means the system is set up wrong. Which it is. It is a common place that people abuse the welfare system. I guess I don't know what you really do for a living so maybe you're shielded from that sort of thing and really do believe the propaganda that says this stuff is as rare as the boogie man. I can tell you first hand it is extremely common.
From Wikipedia:Now welfare fraud is different. That implies that someone is circumventing the welfare system and receiving welfare money that they aren't entitled to. This also happens but it probably more rare then the other type I mentioned above. The fraud you really see is misreported income. I'm guessing the most common situation is the person who receives welfare and also has an income that is unreported (Cash tips, construction workers who get paid in cash). This is a type of welfare fraud that is fairly common. And at a much higher rate then the immigrant rapist and other bullshit.
I've never understood why you've come to see me as some kind of schill for the Democrats. In the post you responded to I mention I would vote for Mitt Romney over the entire field of Republican and Democrat nominees.By the way some of those same questions could be asked of you. Are you such a Democratic homer that you are willing to vote for someone unfit to hold the presidency such as Hilary Clinton? By the way, I'm probably voting Rand Paul regardless. At least I know I'm voting for the right person. Even if the rest of American is treating this as some sort of a football game where they are rooting either for the blue team or the red team and don't give a shit who the player is for that particular team.
Schmitty and VA will be along shortly.Ahh, the season for the "do write-in/third party votes count" argument. Happens every election cycle.
And the same can be said for Republicans.No I'm equating that a negative vote toward one of the two parties will ultimately count since only the winner and loser will be in these ballots. A, lost vote of a write in will not be tabulated for a winner or loser of the two parties. It will not enhance or detract from either candidate. It will just go into the void as if you didn't vote. By voting for a third party it will be lost but will not effect a positive or negative within the two parties. If you vote for the Republican candidate in order to increase the count against the Democrat it wlll at least offset a positive vote for the them. If a vote is cast toward a third party neither the Republican or write will benefit. Nothing will be offset toward a democratic candidate. They will likely benefit because fragmenting voters doesn't hurt their position. Democrats will never lose their polorazation. They will vote for the donkey if that is who is on the ballot.
It was an exercise about third party or write in ballots it had nothing to do with any position I may take in the future. As to the bolded comment it was directed at the democrat voter. They are least likely to cross over. It's the Republicans who are most likely to do a third party or write in vote. That is pretty well displayed by the various board members comments.And the same can be said for Republicans.
It seems you are saying you would never vote for a democrate no matter who they run against if that is not polorization I don't know what is.
Yes, Hillary is unfit.Hilary is unfit?
How about all the bums with no experience running for the (R)? Oh, but since it isn't Obama, it is OK.
There's worse things than 'shutting down Congress', which in most of those cases would only have shut down less than 20% of Congress. And the only shutting down was as a result of holding firm on not funding a bunch of crap the Dems/socialists wanted to shove through, which ultimately is what happened. If you don't fund the BS the Dems want passed then it's 'shutting down Congress'. Well good, shut it down.And criticize Sanders socialism all you like, (I do) but at least he's a guy who knows how to work with congress, unlike Cruz who threatens to shut down the government every time he spills his pudding.
Cruz feels exactly the same way I'm sure, which is why he'd fail desperately as a president, because he can't reach across the aisle. He's gonna sit down and have a big pout when things don't go his way. Giving veto power to that clown could very well be catastrophic.There's worse things than 'shutting down Congress', which in most of those cases would only have shut down less than 20% of Congress. And the only shutting down was as a result of holding firm on not funding a bunch of crap the Dems/socialists wanted to shove through, which ultimately is what happened. If you don't fund the BS the Dems want passed then it's 'shutting down Congress'. Well good, shut it down.
What's interesting is the only time we hear about reaching across the aisle is when it's a Republican. When Dems win they claim to have a mandate and don't feel the need or pressure to compromise.Cruz feels exactly the same way I'm sure, which is why he'd fail desperately as a president, because he can't reach across the aisle. He's gonna sit down and have a big pout when things don't go his way. Giving veto power to that clown could very well be catastrophic.
Well most posters are Republicans so I don't know how that is proof of anything and it's no third party person of note that a Democrat could vote for.It was an exercise about third party or write in ballots it had nothing to do with any position I may take in the future. As to the bolded comment it was directed at the democrat voter. They are least likely to cross over. It's the Republicans who are most likely to do a third party or write in vote. That is pretty well displayed by the various board members comments.
Republicans' and Democrats' support for a third party has fluctuated over the past nine years, but the two groups now have similar views, as they did a year ago. Now, 40% of Democrats support the concept of a third party, compared with 36% of Republicans
In the current survey, Gallup tested the support for three third-party candidates identified by name and party -- Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), and Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) -- and found 1% support for each, with another 1% volunteering another third-party candidate's name.
You're provably wrong. Ross Perot was important enough to an election to cost the Republican candidate the vote, that was tabulated, people took notice of it.No I'm equating that a negative vote toward one of the two parties will ultimately count since only the winner and loser will be in these ballots. A, lost vote of a write in will not be tabulated for a winner or loser of the two parties. It will not enhance or detract from either candidate. It will just go into the void as if you didn't vote. By voting for a third party it will be lost but will not effect a positive or negative within the two parties. If you vote for the Republican candidate in order to increase the count against the Democrat it wlll at least offset a positive vote for the them. If a vote is cast toward a third party neither the Republican or write will benefit. Nothing will be offset toward a democratic candidate. They will likely benefit because fragmenting voters doesn't hurt their position. Democrats will never lose their polorazation. They will vote for the donkey if that is who is on the ballot.
That isn't my position. He affected the Republician candidate only. Had those same votest stayed in the two party voting they would have the outcome differently. As such their vote counted for nothing except defeat for one of those candidates which made them allies of a party they didn't want in office. They destroyed an election by voting for someone that wasn't from a candidate from which the winner would emerge. Yes they affected the outcome but their vote was pointless except for being destructive.You're provably wrong. Ross Perot was important enough to an election to cost the Republican candidate the vote, that was tabulated, people took notice of it.
It sends a message to the party affected that the candidates they nominate are not acceptable. That's an end in and of itself.That isn't my position. He affected the Republician candidate only. Had those same votest stayed in the two party voting they would have the outcome differently. As such their vote counted for nothing except defeat for one of those candidates which made them allies of a party they didn't want in office. They destroyed an election by voting for someone that wasn't from a candidate from which the winner would emerge. Yes they affected the outcome but their vote was pointless except for being destructive.
Again, third party voting does affect election outcomes. If a person was so turned off by the Republican candidate that year they could have simply voted for the democratic opponent instead of Perot and accomplished the same thing. The fact that they voted for Perot simply solidified the democrat by taking votes away from the republican but their vote didn't accomplish what they thought it would. They didn't get Perot elected and their vote became pointless because the winner will almost always come from the Dems or Reps. Vote third party and you get nothing you just succeed in helping someone of the two parties get elected and that's it. Again you could have accomplished that by voting against someone in one of the major party's.It sends a message to the party affected that the candidates they nominate are not acceptable. That's an end in and of itself.
Voting third party sends a different message than voting Democrat. It shows the Republicans that we want a conservative but we don't consider their candidate to be one.Again, third party voting does affect election outcomes. If a person was so turned off by the Republican candidate that year they could have simply voted for the democratic opponent instead of Perot and accomplished the same thing. The fact that they voted for Perot simply solidified the democrat by taking votes away from the republican but their vote didn't accomplish what they thought it would. They didn't get Perot elected and their vote became pointless because the winner will almost always come from the Dems or Reps. Vote third party and you get nothing you just succeed in helping someone of the two parties get elected and that's it. Again you could have accomplished that by voting against someone in one of the major party's.
It also sends the message that maybe the two party system is ready to undergo a change. Its why we see other parties pop up such as the Libertarians, Tea Party and socialists. Its why a socialist candidate such as Bernie is running under the name of a democrat. Or a libertarian leaning candidate is running as a Republican.Voting third party sends a different message than voting Democrat. It shows the Republicans that we want a conservative but we don't consider their candidate to be one.
Nope.Again, third party voting does affect election outcomes. If a person was so turned off by the Republican candidate that year they could have simply voted for the democratic opponent instead of Perot and accomplished the same thing. The fact that they voted for Perot simply solidified the democrat by taking votes away from the republican but their vote didn't accomplish what they thought it would. They didn't get Perot elected and their vote became pointless because the winner will almost always come from the Dems or Reps. Vote third party and you get nothing you just succeed in helping someone of the two parties get elected and that's it. Again you could have accomplished that by voting against someone in one of the major party's.
Yep, there's nothing in the constitution about a "two party system" and I'd welcome any attempt to destabilize it.It also sends the message that maybe the two party system is ready to undergo a change. Its why we see other parties pop up such as the Libertarians, Tea Party and socialists. Its why a socialist candidate such as Bernie is running under the name of a democrat. Or a libertarian leaning candidate is running as a Republican.
If a candidate doesn't represent what you want, I see no reason to vote for him.