REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

America’s election process an international embarrassment

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Saturday, November 17, 2012 04:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 892
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Imagine a country on election day where you know the results the instant the polls close. The votes are counted electronically, every district and state has the same rules and the same organized voting procedure. It is managed by a non-partisan independent body. Sounds like the greatest democracy in the world, right? Try Mexico. Or France, Germany, Brazil. Certainly not the United States of America.

America has one of the world’s most antique, politicized and dysfunctional procedures for its elections. A crazy quilt patchwork of state and local laws with partisan officials making key decisions and ancient technology that often breaks down. There are no national standards. American voters in more than a dozen states, for example, don’t need ID. But even India, with a GDP just 12 percent that of ours, is implementing a national biometric database for 1.2 billion voters. The nascent democracy in Iraq famously dipped voters’ fingers in purple to ensure they didn't vote again. Why are we so behind the curve?

The conservative columnist David Frum recently wrote an excellent article for CNN.com and he tells a story about the 2000 presidential election. The city of St. Louis, Missouri had outdated voting equipment. So there were long delays in voting. But St. Louis was heavily democratic, so Al Gore’s campaign asked a judge to extend voting by three hours.

The judge agreed. But then George W. Bush's campaign protested, and the judge was overruled. Meanwhile voting had already continued 45 minutes past the legal time.

Is that how elections should work in the world’s greatest democracy? In most other democracies, an independent national body would make the big decisions. There would be non-partisan observers at the polls. And of course, there would be modern, functioning equipment. Even Venezuela, which had elections last month, had electronic voting booths with biometric technology across the country.

We’ve been criticized around the world for this. I saw a scathing 116-page report about our electoral process published by, of all places, Russia. Here’s the Wall Street Journal’s translation of it: “The electoral system and electoral laws of the United States are…contradictory, archaic, and, moreover, do not meet the democratic principles that the U.S. proclaims are fundamental to its foreign and domestic policy.”

I hate to say it, but Moscow has a point. (On the other hand, we do have one thing the Russians don’t: actual free elections.)

This election season we’ve seen attempts to shorten the early voting period to further one party’s chances of victory. Our ballots can be as long as a dozen pages. In some places they are paper ballots, and in some they are electronic. And Election Day always falls on a Tuesday – a working day. Every four years we see the chaos of American elections, but nothing changes.

Last week, international election observers were banned from nine states. Some of these men and women were threatened with arrest. Maybe we should start learning from election officials from abroad, not try to throw them into jail. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/americas-election-p
rocess-an-international-embarrassment/?hpt=hp_bn2
]
I posted the entire article, as I don't think Fareed Zakaria will mind if he doesn't get enough "clicks" on what he has to say.

I think what he had to say is vital for this country. I know our antiquated and confusing election process benefits some, which is, in my mind, even LESS excuse for fixing it.

That last part infuriates me. Don't we FORCE election observers on other countries? Have we become a third-world country where the government is quite content to keep the rest of the world from seeing our dirty laundry?

Before we go about "fixing" the electoral college (about the existence of which I have my own disagreement), maybe there should be some kind of big push by the CITIZENS to fix our elections themselves!

A few examples:
Quote:

Miami Election Protection Workers Report Hijinks

Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez, senior attorney and director of voter protection for the Advancement Project, a civil rights group, reported to HuffPost problems in two precincts. She said that she had to return to one North Miami precinct three times to assist poll workers.

In one instance, elderly residents, and residents with literacy issues sought out help from Advancement Project staff. Poll watchers intervened and tried to prevent them from assisting these voters, Culliton-Gonzalez said.

The same precinct also did not have a bilingual poll worker. An election protection worker was asked to help translate. That worker was promptly kicked out of the precinct. After much back and forth, she was allowed back in," she said. She was evicted a second time, before polling staff again allowed her back in.

In another precinct, Culliton-Gonzalez said a GOP lawyer managed to get inside the voting area. "The voters and the poll workers were all people of color," she explained. "She bullied her way in."

Quote:

Virginia Voter Questioned About Address

HuffPost reader Kira Young reported she was questioned intensely by a poll worker in Winchester, Va., this morning about her street address. Young said that when she presented her voter I.D. card to the poll worker, the worker pressed for details of where her house was located. Young said the poll worker said it was because he had never heard of Young's street.

Quote:

Voting Problems In Ohio, Texas, According To Election Protection Volunteers

Ellis Jacobs, an attorney and volunteer with Election Protection in Montgomery County, Ohio, noted that as part of a cost-saving measure, Montgomery County is operating half as many polling places this year as it did in 2008, a cutback that he said “forced a lot of people into some locations that were not necessarily suited to have a lot of people,” and created some “claustrophobic” situations early in the day.

Jacobs also said that he’d been told a woman claiming to be from ORCA -- a Republican poll monitoring program staffed by volunteers -- came to a Dayton polling location and spent time “looking over the shoulders of the poll workers” and “telling the poll workers what they should and should not be doing.” Jacobs said that the woman was reportedly removed from the polling station after staffers asked if she was there in an official capacity and she said that she was not.

Quote:

Kansas Poll Worker Asks More Than Required On Voter I.D.

A poll worker in Wichita, Kan., was matching voters' addresses on voter rolls with the address on their photo I.D. -- a level of identification not required under state law, a HuffPost reader reported. Under state law, the I.D. card has to have a photo of the voter, but does not need to show a current address. The decision to try to match the addresses was causing a backup in provisional ballots being distributed to voters at Central Christian Church.

Quote:

Thousands Of Ballots In Colorado Are Rejected

Thousands of Colorado mail ballots have been rejected because of signature issues. Voters either didn't sign them or election officials have determined there is a discrepancy.

Quote:

Forced To Vote Provisionally In Ohio

HuffPost reader Ryan Mobley reports that he and his sister were forced to cast provisional ballots Tuesday morning in Greene County, Ohio. Mobley said that while they both received confirmation from county election officials over the summer that indicated they were registered to vote in Greene County, neither of their names appeared in the voting book when they went to vote. He said he produced ID and other documents with his address and was told he was only able to vote provisionally. Mobley noted that a poll worker had to open a packet of provisional ballots for the two to use and also read the directions for provisional voting.

"I am truly disgusted," Mobley said. "I am a young voter but have exercised my right to vote many times before. I have also voted in Franklin and Montgomery counties in the past and I have never experienced a problem before today."


It goes on and on and on...these stories come from voter e-mails, news reports from Reuters, newspapers such as the Washington Examiner, Denver Post, etc. They can all be checked out and have links to their original publications at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/2012-elections-polling-places
_n_2036228.html#71_forced-to-vote-provisionally-in-ohio


These are only the ones we KNOW of, and only those we know of that were REPORTED. I'm ashamed of my country.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:01 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I agree with you that our voting process is sub-par.

I wish we could reform it.

At the same time I fear that those who would have to reform it, our representatives, would somehow find a way to reform it in their favor. We must make sure that any reform happens at a time when the country is evenly divided, so that each side's finagling offsets the finagling of the opposition and no one can manage an advantage.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Me, I got ZERO issues with extending the voting to a three day period.
No one should EVER have to walk away without their voice heard cause there wasn't time for them to vote.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:32 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
A few examples:
Quote:

Miami Election Protection Workers Report Hijinks

Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez, senior attorney and director of voter protection for the Advancement Project, a civil rights group, reported to HuffPost problems in two precincts. She said that she had to return to one North Miami precinct three times to assist poll workers.

In one instance, elderly residents, and residents with literacy issues sought out help from Advancement Project staff. Poll watchers intervened and tried to prevent them from assisting these voters, Culliton-Gonzalez said.

The same precinct also did not have a bilingual poll worker. An election protection worker was asked to help translate. That worker was promptly kicked out of the precinct. After much back and forth, she was allowed back in," she said. She was evicted a second time, before polling staff again allowed her back in."




So the representatives of the Advancement Project tried to do things that are forbidden at most polling places. Folks without official status aren't supposed to be involved in helping or translating for voters, due to the possibility of fraud. Would you have felt confident if it were a conservative group 'volunteering' to help people vote?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:17 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I agree with you that our voting process is sub-par.

I wish we could reform it.

At the same time I fear that those who would have to reform it, our representatives, would somehow find a way to reform it in their favor. We must make sure that any reform happens at a time when the country is evenly divided, so that each side's finagling offsets the finagling of the opposition and no one can manage an advantage.




As messy as the voting process is with different machines, different rules, different times, etc. between states and sometimes within states, I'm kind of leery of having one national system. Seems that it would give the ability to have a single point of 'failure' in favor of whoever was in power.

Don't really have a problem with not knowing exactly how every district voted 30 seconds after the polls close either. If the process is fair enough to come up with the actual winner, I'm not too worried about what the Russians say, since I figure our elections, warts and all, are worlds fairer than theirs.

The only national rules I could see being worthwhile would involve setting standardized voting hours, advance and absentee voting periods, and the number of voting machines per registered voters in each voting district.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2012 6:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

At the same time I fear that those who would have to reform it, our representatives, would somehow find a way to reform it in their favor. We must make sure that any reform happens at a time when the country is evenly divided, so that each side's finagling offsets the finagling of the opposition and no one can manage an advantage.

Are we ever evenly divided? ;o) I share your fears. The best I can hope for is the recent suggestion that poll workers and those who decide when, where, how many days, etc., be nonpartisan...tho' I don't know how you achieve that!


Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2012 2:51 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


They need to set up an independant electoral body. It should be a no brainer really, that the processes surrounding a federal election should be the same for everyone in the country. Same rules, same conditions.

The other thing they should do is make election day a saturday. You'd automatically increase voter turn out.

Yes, your electoral system is quite bamboozling. Sometimes I think Americans are addicted to making stuff more difficult than it should be and that is partly coz you like to reinvent the wheel.

eg "How do we manage creating a public health system? its never been done before? How do we know what will work?"

Yep, heard these very statements on internet forums. is there a complete lack of capacity for America to look for solutions outside of your own shores? There appears to be, its a kind of hubris I think, or that entrenched view of American exceptionalism. If you even allow yourselves to believe that somewhere else may have done something good or beter or first, that your whole sense of who you are crumbles around your feet?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2012 4:48 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
They need to set up an independant electoral body. It should be a no brainer really, that the processes surrounding a federal election should be the same for everyone in the country. Same rules, same conditions.


This gets into the delicate balance between the Federal and State governments and the rights granted to each in the Constitution. There's really no Constitutional requirement that the states allow anybody to vote on national offices, except that citizens of all races and sexes over 18 are included in whatever process the states use.

Quote:

The other thing they should do is make election day a saturday. You'd automatically increase voter turn out.
Except maybe orthodox Jews.

Quote:

Yes, your electoral system is quite bamboozling. Sometimes I think Americans are addicted to making stuff more difficult than it should be and that is partly coz you like to reinvent the wheel.

I think a lot has to do with folks not wanting too much control of the process to be in the hands of a small group of politicos. With differing systems in each state, and sometimes in each congressional district, it's difficult to suborn enough folks in a national or state election to make a difference. If all the data goes through one system, there's less folks involved and more chance they could be corrupted, especially with all the money involved in elections these days.

Quote:

eg "How do we manage creating a public health system? its never been done before? How do we know what will work?"

Been seeing a lot on BBC world site about problems with National Health. Looks like after 50 years it's still a work in progress.

Quote:

Yep, heard these very statements on internet forums.

So obviously ALL Americans must believe them. Sorry, but I can find most anyone from most anywhere saying most anything on an internet forum.


Quote:

is there a complete lack of capacity for America to look for solutions outside of your own shores? There appears to be, its a kind of hubris I think, or that entrenched view of American exceptionalism. If you even allow yourselves to believe that somewhere else may have done something good or beter or first, that your whole sense of who you are crumbles around your feet?

Well, we borrowed democracy without too much trouble.

But since you've mentioned health care, we do have problems there because we've made such a privileged class out of doctors, and pretty much the whole medical profession. Until we break the monopoly of the medical profession, either by what's basically trustbusting of the AMA to allow actual competitive pricing for medical services, or just have the government set prices bt fiat, we won't accomplish much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2012 7:18 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

This gets into the delicate balance between the Federal and State governments and the rights granted to each in the Constitution. There's really no Constitutional requirement that the states allow anybody to vote on national offices, except that citizens of all races and sexes over 18 are included in whatever process the states use.



Is there anything that prevents it? It seems to me that there is a fundamental inequity about allowing different people different voting rights when it is a federal election.

And shouldn't the aim be to make it as inclusive and easy as possible. I don't see why being convicted of a felony should restrict you from voting in an election?

Somebody suggested 2 days of voting. And why not, or make postal votes a lot more accessable.


Quote:

I think a lot has to do with folks not wanting too much control of the process to be in the hands of a small group of politicos. With differing systems in each state, and sometimes in each congressional district, it's difficult to suborn enough folks in a national or state election to make a difference. If all the data goes through one system, there's less folks involved and more chance they could be corrupted, especially with all the money involved in elections these days.


Yup, that is exactly what I mean. Basically some people are paranoid about anything happening on a national level because it is so ingrained that fed power is always more corruptable than state power. Can't see why either should not be able to have enough checks, balances and scrutiny built in to the process, but some people will remain paranoid. And I think THAT is the very element that makes things overly complex. It's a kind of helplessness that assumes that you cannot prevent corruption, whereas actually you can if you have the will.

Quote:


Been seeing a lot on BBC world site about problems with National Health. Looks like after 50 years it's still a work in progress.



DO you think it is the only public health system in existence? Looking outside your own shores means scrutinising others systems, seeing what works and what doesn't, how you might adapt to your own. And if you are after perfection in any system, you are really on the fast track to disappointment. Again, you gotta have the will. What I observe is the unwillingness to consider ANY public health system and it is largely again due to the paranoia that one day you'll wake up in something akin to Stalin's Soviet Union.

Quote:


So obviously ALL Americans must believe them. Sorry, but I can find most anyone from most anywhere saying most anything on an internet forum.


Nice dismissal there. Not even worth a response.


Quote:


Well, we borrowed democracy without too much trouble.


Maybe the times of the founding fathers were a little more open minded than the current political climate.

Quote:

But since you've mentioned health care, we do have problems there because we've made such a privileged class out of doctors, and pretty much the whole medical profession. Until we break the monopoly of the medical profession, either by what's basically trustbusting of the AMA to allow actual competitive pricing for medical services, or just have the government set prices bt fiat, we won't accomplish much.


Or maybe some things just don't work so well in a competetive environment. Should healthcare be a consumer choice like clothing or cars? After all, you don't choose your illness. There isn't a level playing field when it comes to handing out medical problems.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

This gets into the delicate balance between the Federal and State governments and the rights granted to each in the Constitution. There's really no Constitutional requirement that the states allow anybody to vote on national offices, except that citizens of all races and sexes over 18 are included in whatever process the states use.



Is there anything that prevents it? It seems to me that there is a fundamental inequity about allowing different people different voting rights when it is a federal election.




I don't think that there is an overwhelming desire among the voters to change the system. The States and their people are pretty jealous of their rights and might not want to give them up. Since the determination of voting rules is left up to the States in the Constitution, it would take quite a bit of legislation, or a Constitutional Amendment, to create a National voting system run by the Federal government, and I don't think the support for it is there.

Quote:

And shouldn't the aim be to make it as inclusive and easy as possible. I don't see why being convicted of a felony should restrict you from voting in an election?

I don't either, but again, up to the people.

Quote:

Somebody suggested 2 days of voting. And why not, or make postal votes a lot more accessable.

Most places have absentee and early voting for periods longer than two days.


Quote:

Yup, that is exactly what I mean. Basically some people are paranoid about anything happening on a national level because it is so ingrained that fed power is always more corruptable than state power. Can't see why either should not be able to have enough checks, balances and scrutiny built in to the process, but some people will remain paranoid. And I think THAT is the very element that makes things overly complex. It's a kind of helplessness that assumes that you cannot prevent corruption, whereas actually you can if you have the will.


I think it's more that people believe any system is corruptable (see Niki's original post in this thread), and figure smaller chunks of malfeasence do less harm. Americans have always had a healthy distrust of their government, and I'm not sure that's not a good thing. They've also seen checks and balances fail, and might prefer that such failures be localized, rather than national.

Quote:


Looking outside your own shores means scrutinising others systems, seeing what works and what doesn't, how you might adapt to your own. And if you are after perfection in any system, you are really on the fast track to disappointment. Again, you gotta have the will. What I observe is the unwillingness to consider ANY public health system and it is largely again due to the paranoia that one day you'll wake up in something akin to Stalin's Soviet Union.



But the Affordable Care Act is rolling out now, and has stood several court challanges. It's not likely to go away in the next four years, and by then will probably be too ingrained in the system for easy removal. I would assume that the writers of the ACA looked at other systems for ideas, but obviously fashioned something they thought the electorate would accept.

Quote:

Quote:


Well, we borrowed democracy without too much trouble.


Maybe the times of the founding fathers were a little more open minded than the current political climate.



See my comments about the ACA above.

Quote:

Or maybe some things just don't work so well in a competetive environment. Should healthcare be a consumer choice like clothing or cars? After all, you don't choose your illness. There isn't a level playing field when it comes to handing out medical problems.

As noted in a prior post, sometimes nationalizing a system doesn't make it better, just nationalized. There doesn't seen to me to be any reason that a private medical system couldn't run effectively and at lower cost if the monopolistic arrangement we have now were removed.

Also, I prefer to be able to choose my own doctor, which might or night not be possible under nationalized health care.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

It seems to me that there is a fundamental inequity about allowing different people different voting rights when it is a federal election.

I agree, Magons. Was listening to a pundit who was asked about a unified system last night who said it would be damned difficult, states rights and all of that. That seems illogical to me, when you look at all the problems we've had HISTORICALLY with states running national election. Some sense of consistency is badly needed.
Quote:

And shouldn't the aim be to make it as inclusive and easy as possible.

Not hardly! We've had problems from Day One with letting ALL people vote (I think most or all countries wiht some minority classes have, haven't they?) or hold office. There are those who feel certain classes shouldn't have the right to vote at all even now...bear in mind that here, women only got that right to vote in some states in the late 19th century. I see "South Australia" "gave" women the right about the same time (I hate that concept!). It wasn't until 1920. after WWI, that universal suffrage was passed by our Congress here "as a war measure", and even then, the Democrats filibustered at first and then half of them voted against it. Bear in mind that, at the time, our two parties were essentially the opposite of what they are now.

To this day, some dream of women not being able to vote, most vocal among them, good old Ann Coulter:
Quote:

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Asked in a debate how she would feel personally if she couldn’t vote. She responded: “If my entire gender loses it too, then I’m OK with it.” But then, that's Ann Coulter...

One of our GOP crazies, the infamous John Derbyshire, shares her opinion: "Derbyshire maintained that “The conservative case against it is that women lean hard to the left. They want someone to nurture, they want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren’t inclined to do it — and in the present days, they’re not much — then they’d like the state to do it for them.” Asked if countries like Great Britain and the United States would be a better country if women didn’t vote, Derbyshire responded. “Probably. Don’t you think so?”

Scary.

Geezer is right about the inherent difficulty of making national voting laws, especially
Quote:

The States and their people are pretty jealous of their rights and might not want to give them up.

"States' rights" is a real biggie here

As to a national health system,
Quote:

if you are after perfection in any system, you are really on the fast track to disappointment

about says it all. Social Security and Medicare were shit to start with, were honed over time and still aren't perfect...nothing IS. The unwillingness to consider any form of public health system is fostered by the right and the insurance companies--the latter being the main problem. Geezer is right about the "monopolistic" aspect of that, and just how strong the insurance industry is was easily recognizable by how hard it was to push national healthcare, that the "public option" was never really possible, and how it turned OUT in the end (with so many gimmes to the insurance companies that it was really a bad bill in the end). The idea of "private enterprise" handling virtually EVERYTHING and government being responsible for virtually--or even completely--ANYTHING, is essentially what Republicans pretty much want on all issues, and both sides are heavily indebted to the insurance industry. Insurance companies having almost complete control over what health care we've been able to get, what we don't, and how much it costs, isn't something they'll easily give up. Unless you can afford expensive healthcare, which doctors you can and cannot see are ALREADY limited by insurance companies. I imagine a large percentage of the medical profession doesn't want nationalized healthcare, either, but blaming the medical profession entirely is disingenuous at best.

I think the fear that we'd end up socialist is played to by the right, when in actuality it would never happen. It's a great fear tactic, tho', and has worked on many issues...despite the fact that the American people have little idea what "socialism" actually is. It's a great dog whistle.

As to our founding fathers, actually they were far LESS open-minded than (MOST OF) our representatives today, in many ways. Remember, we were born of a bunch of Puritans, and the rich had power over most of everything. Those of our FFs who were thoughtful and wanted to do it right fought as best they could to set up a democracy which couldn't be fucked over, but over time, of course, humans find a way... I think they tried to take the best from the system they left and mold it into something more decent, but nobody's perfect.

And yes, many of our states have early voting, voting by mail, and even "motor voter". It just varies from state to state, and Governors and legislatures have the right, state by state, to decide how it works. I think at the very least voting should be mandated to occur over several days nationwide; that would be a good start anyway.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 21:58 - 4537 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Tue, November 5, 2024 18:25 - 68 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:35 - 4677 posts
Election fraud.
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:19 - 39 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:16 - 53 posts
Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:12 - 248 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:57 - 32 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:55 - 40 posts
What kind of superpower could China be?
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:02 - 54 posts
End of the Democratic Party (not kidding)
Tue, November 5, 2024 14:18 - 56 posts
Disgruntled Tepublicans vow to move to Australia
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:53 - 76 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:47 - 639 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL