Blarghagh Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 This is your place to talk about the latest political kerfuffle. Remember, even if you hate each other('s side or candidate), let's tackle the ball instead of the player. Insult Killary or Drumpf all you want, but your fellow member's moms are off limits. Check the forum guidelines here if you're in doubt: https://forums.obsid...tion=boardrules Also, in case it's unclear: THE EDIT BUTTON EXISTS FOR A REASON. USE IT. Carry on. 1
Valsuelm Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 (edited) California to register illegal aliens to vote – automatically Well, let's hope this article is erroneous. It's certainly what the evils have been aiming for though, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was correct. Edited January 21, 2018 by Valsuelm
injurai Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 Never heard of the site. https://www.alexa.com/find-similar-sites#site=wnd.com Seems like it does have a slant though. I'm going to wager the guess that non-citizens aren't being given the right to vote.
Valsuelm Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 Never heard of the site. https://www.alexa.com/find-similar-sites#site=wnd.com Seems like it does have a slant though. I'm going to wager the guess that non-citizens aren't being given the right to vote. Blatantly, no, that won't happen. Not yet anyways. Greasing the skids more for them to do it illegal however, yes, there are many people in power that are all for that.
Agiel Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) One distinctly recalls Idle and Palin in this scene from the Meaning of Life when watching the White House and the GOP try to explain the President's positions: Edited January 22, 2018 by Agiel 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Katphood Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 Turkey gave US heads-up on Syria operation: Mattis.(dailymail.co.uk) a.arm the Kurdish people b.give legitimate reason to Turkey to attack them Hypocrisy at its finest, or am I missing something here?! There used to be a signature here, a really cool one...and now it's gone.
injurai Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 There are two militias being talked about, the PKK and the YPG. The YPG being the militia of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, an unrecognized quasi-independent and ethnically Kurdish state. Then the communist PKK is a terrorist group to NATO. The YPG is associated with being allied with the US. Right now the Kurds want to form their own free Democratic state. They want Northern Syria, a corner of Iraq (however I think this region is increasingly becoming content) and then South East Turkey. In Turkey there are rebellions for independence, which the PKK no doubt supports, and the YPG no doubt wants this independence as well. Turkey has recently connected the two groups, but it's unclear how strong the connection is. It looks like a nominal connection at best in favor for a Kurdish state, but Turkey is using the opportunity to go after the YPG by associate with the PKK. US works with YPG. But if part of it is now up in Turkey's business and making a an oppertune alliance with the PKK it would be understandable for the turn-tail. I'm not happy with the trends going on in Turkey. But I don't think the YPG is as uniformly organized as one might be led to believe. A lot of dreamers who really don't know the machinations of the higher powers in the region, the likelihood of getting their own state is far off.
smjjames Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) Never heard of the site. https://www.alexa.com/find-similar-sites#site=wnd.com Seems like it does have a slant though. I'm going to wager the guess that non-citizens aren't being given the right to vote. Blatantly, no, that won't happen. Not yet anyways. Greasing the skids more for them to do it illegal however, yes, there are many people in power that are all for that. From the page: "But beginning April 1 every person who gets a California driver’s license will be automatically entitled to vote." Early April Fools? One thing I notice however, is that there are absolutely no sources, no links to whatever is being talked about. Edited January 22, 2018 by smjjames
redneckdevil Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 California to register illegal aliens to vote – automatically Well, let's hope this article is erroneous. It's certainly what the evils have been aiming for though, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was correct. I'm hoping so since it states it's gonna start on April fool's day.
Elerond Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html Here's how California's new voter registration law will workCalifornia has received a lot of attention in recent days for its new voter registration law, which is intended to streamline the process of signing up to vote and encourage more participation in elections. Here’s what we know — and don’t know yet — about the new law: What is the process?When people go to the DMV to obtain or renew a driver's license, or to get a state identification card, they’ll be asked for the usual information in such transactions, such as their name, date of birth and address. They’ll also be asked to affirm their eligibility to vote and will be given the choice of opting out of registering at that time. Information about anyone who does not decline registration will be electronically transmitted from the DMV to the secretary of state’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will be added to the voter rolls.When will this go into effect?That’s unclear. The law goes into place on Jan. 1, 2016, but the DMV said in a statement that it would not send information to the secretary of state until that office "develops regulations, completes a statewide database system and funding is secured to implement this program.” The regulations, which must be agreed upon between the DMV and the secretary of state, will have to settle basic procedural issues, such as how the “opt-out” question will be phrased and how often the DMV will transmit data.The statewide voter registration database, Vote-Cal, is on track to be implemented by June 2016, said Secretary of State Alex Padilla. He said he expects funding needs to be minimal, noting that the DMV received money in the current state budget for a technology upgrade. If there are extra costs, he said, “the governor signed the bill, and I interpret his signature as a commitment to funding implementation as necessary.”Resolving the procedural questions will take some time, Padilla acknowledged. “It won’t be in time for the June primary of 2016,” he said. “At the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California."Is this really “automatic” voter registration?Not quite. No one who is eligible will be registered to vote without their knowledge. Proponents of the New Motor Voter Act have emphasized how the electronic transmittal of information will simplify the process. Lori Shellenberger, voting rights director for the ACLU of California, called the law “a gold standard for what is an automated voter registration, but not automatic.”How is this law different from Oregon’s, where automatic registration was first enacted?The key difference is the timing of the “opt-out” choice. In Oregon, there are no questions about voter registration at the point of service at the DMV. Rather, the DMV forwards people's information to the secretary of State. Those deemed eligible receive a card in the mail that informs them of their registered status and allows them to pick a political party or to opt out of registration.What about people in the country illegally who are able to obtain driver's licenses in California under a law passed in 2013?Padilla noted that there is already a separate process for residents in the country illegally to apply for special licenses. Although citizens are currently offered the opportunity to register to vote at the DMV under an earlier federal law, noncitizens are not. That will continue under the new registration process. People applying for the special licenses will not be asked about their eligibility to vote and will not be asked if they’d like to opt out of registration.“We’ve built the protocols and the firewalls to not register people that aren’t eligible,” Padilla said. “We’re going to keep those firewalls in place." https://www.npr.org/2015/10/11/447796712/california-becomes-2nd-state-to-automatically-register-voters California Becomes 2nd State To Automatically Register Voters In a move lawmakers hope will drive more Californians to the polls, Gov. Jerry Brown approved legislation that automatically registers citizens to vote when they obtain or renew driver's licenses or state identification cards. The measure, known as the "New Motor Voter Act," was signed into law Saturday. California joins Oregon as the second state in the nation opting to register voters through its department of motor vehicles. Oregon passed its law in March. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement the law will "make voter registration seamless" and will amount to "the largest voter registration drive in the nation's history." He added: "In a free society, the right to vote is fundamental. ... The New Motor Voter Act will make our democracy stronger by removing a key barrier to voting for millions of California citizens. ..."Citizens should not be required to opt-in to their fundamental right to vote. We do not have to opt-in to other rights, such as free speech or due process. The right to vote should be no different."Padilla notes voters retain the right to opt out, cancel or change party affiliation at any time. His office also said an estimated 6.6 million Californians are eligible to vote but are not registered. Emily Rusch, the executive director of the advocacy group California Public Interest Research Group, hopes the new law changes those figures. "Our democracy is absolutely dependent on the participation of all our eligible citizens. But right now we see that far too many Californians aren't even registered to vote, so they're not even getting information about the election," Rusch said. California is also coming off a dismal showing during last year's midterm elections, which had a record-low turnout of 42 percent. Rusch thinks the new motor voter law is likely to have the greatest impact on young millennials. She said only 52 percent of the state's residents ages 18 to 24 were registered to vote before the midterm election. "That means that nearly over half of eligible youth are just being left out entirely of the process," Rusch said. "Certainly we will still need to do outreach and education. Young people move around a lot. And so we'll need to make sure they're updating their voter registration as they move around and they have adequate information about the elections that they feel confident voting on a ballot," Rusch added. Most of the Republicans in the California Legislature opposed the measure. And nationally, many conservative groups say these laws make state voter rolls more vulnerable to fraud. Hans von Spakovsky, a legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said just because the state automatically registers people does not necessarily mean they will decide to vote in elections. He says if people want to participate they will do it on their own. Von Spakovsky adds the law puts citizens in a tough position if they want to be removed from the state's automatic voter registration. "If you want to get out of the system you've got to take the step of going and telling the government you don't want to do it," he said. "I think most Americans ... will tell you they don't like that idea." California's new law is scheduled to go into effect in January. But the automatic registration won't be offered until work is finished on a statewide database, which may not be complete until summer of 2016. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/dl/motorvoter California New Motor Voter Program The Department of Motor Vehicles and Secretary of State are working to establish a new California Motor Voter Program as defined by AB 1461. This new program will increase voter registration during DMV transactions by automatically registering any person who is qualified to vote unless that person opts out of registration. Exciting changes to arrive in April 2018. More information coming soon. Law itself https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 Assembly Bill No. 1461 CHAPTER 729 An act to amend Sections 2100 and 2102 of, and to add Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 2260) to Division 2 of the Elections Code, relating to elections. [ Approved by Governor October 10, 2015. Filed with Secretary of State October 10, 2015. ] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1461, Gonzalez. Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.Existing law, the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993, requires a state to, among other things, establish procedures to register a person to vote by application made simultaneously with an application for a new or renewal of a motor vehicle driver’s license. The federal act requires the motor vehicle driver’s license application to serve as an application for voter registration with respect to an election for federal office, unless the applicant fails to sign the application, and requires the application to be considered as updating the applicant’s previous voter registration, if any. The federal act defines “motor vehicle driver’s license” to include any personal identification document issued by a state motor vehicle authority.Under existing state law, a person may not be registered to vote except by affidavit of registration. Existing law requires a properly executed affidavit of registration to be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if the affidavit is submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles on or before the 15th day before the election. Existing state law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Secretary of State to develop a process and the infrastructure to allow a person who is qualified to register to vote in the state to register to vote online.Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue driver’s licenses and state identification cards to applicants who meet specified criteria and provide the department with the required information. Existing law generally requires an applicant for an original driver’s license or state identification card to submit satisfactory proof to the department that the applicant’s presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.This bill would require the Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish the California New Motor Voter Program for the purpose of increasing opportunities for voter registration by any person who is qualified to be a voter. Under the program, after the Secretary of State certifies that certain enumerated conditions are satisfied, the Department of Motor Vehicles would be required to electronically provide to the Secretary of State the records of each person who is issued an original or renewal of a driver’s license or state identification card or who provides the department with a change of address, as specified. The person’s motor vehicle records would then constitute a completed affidavit of registration and the person would be registered to vote, unless the person affirmatively declined to be registered to vote during a transaction with the department, the department did not represent to the Secretary of State that the person attested that he or she meets all voter eligibility requirements, as specified, or the Secretary of State determines that the person is ineligible to vote. The bill would require the Secretary of State to adopt regulations to implement this program, as specified.Under existing law, the willful, unauthorized disclosure of information from a Department of Motor Vehicles record to any person, or the use of any false representation to obtain information from a department record or any use of information obtained from any department record for a purpose other than the one stated in the request or the sale or other distribution of the information to a person or organization for purposes not disclosed in the request is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both fine and imprisonment.This bill would provide that disclosure of information contained in the records obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to the California New Motor Voter Program is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both fine and imprisonment. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, authorizes every state agency to maintain in its records only personal information that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency, or is required or authorized by state or federal law. That act specifies the situations in which disclosure is permissible and also specifies the manner in which agencies must account for disclosures of personal information, including those due to security breaches, among other provisions.This bill would require the Secretary of State to establish procedures to safeguard the confidentiality of information acquired from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to the California New Motor Voter Program and would state that the provisions of the Information Practices Act of 1977 govern disclosures pursuant to the program.Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled to registration. Existing law also makes it a crime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote.This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above, that person’s registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.This bill would also make conforming changes.This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 2102 of the Elections Code, proposed by SB 589, that would become operative only if SB 589 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.DIGEST KEYVote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes BILL TEXTTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2100 of the Elections Code is amended to read:2100. A person shall not be registered except as provided in this chapter or Chapter 4.5, except upon the production and filing of a certified copy of a judgment of the superior court directing registration to be made.SEC. 2. Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by Section 6.5 of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of 2014, is amended to read:2102. (a) Except as provided in Chapter 4.5, a person shall not be registered as a voter except by affidavit of registration. The affidavit shall be mailed or delivered to the county elections official and shall set forth all of the facts required to be shown by this chapter. A properly executed registration shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if received on or before the 15th day prior to an election to be held in the registrant’s precinct. A properly executed registration shall also be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if any of the following apply:(1) The affidavit is postmarked on or before the 15th day prior to the election and received by mail by the county elections official.(2) The affidavit is submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles or accepted by any other public agency designated as a voter registration agency pursuant to the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.) on or before the 15th day prior to the election.(3) The affidavit is delivered to the county elections official by means other than those described in paragraph (1) and (2) on or before the 15th day prior to the election.(4) The affidavit is submitted electronically on the Internet Web site of the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2196 on or before the 15th day prior to the election.(b) For purposes of verifying a signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition or a signature on a nomination paper or any other election petition or election paper, a properly executed affidavit of registration shall be deemed effective for verification purposes if both of the following conditions are satisfied:(1) The affidavit is signed on the same date or a date prior to the signing of the petition or paper.(2) The affidavit is received by the county elections official on or before the date on which the petition or paper is filed.© Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the affidavit of registration required under this chapter shall not be taken under sworn oath, but the content of the affidavit shall be certified as to its truthfulness and correctness, under penalty of perjury, by the signature of the affiant.(d) A person who is at least 16 years of age and otherwise meets all eligibility requirements to vote may submit his or her affidavit of registration as prescribed by this section. A properly executed registration made pursuant to this subdivision shall be deemed effective as of the date the affiant will be 18 years of age, if the information in the affidavit of registration is still current at that time. If the information provided by the affiant in the affidavit of registration is not current at the time that the registration would otherwise become effective, for his or her registration to become effective, the affiant shall provide the current information to the proper county elections official as prescribed by this chapter.SEC. 2.5. Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by Section 6.5 of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of 2014, is amended to read:2102. (a) Except as provided in Chapter 4.5, a person shall not be registered as a voter except by affidavit of registration. The affidavit of registration shall be mailed or delivered to the county elections official and shall set forth all of the facts required to be shown by this chapter. A properly executed affidavit of registration shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if received on or before the 15th day before an election to be held in the registrant’s precinct. A properly executed affidavit of registration shall also be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if any of the following apply:(1) The affidavit is postmarked on or before the 15th day before the election and received by mail by the county elections official.(2) The affidavit is submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles or accepted by any other public agency designated as a voter registration agency pursuant to the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 20501 et seq.) on or before the 15th day before the election.(3) The affidavit is delivered to the county elections official by means other than those described in paragraphs (1) and (2) on or before the 15th day before the election.(4) The affidavit is submitted electronically on the Internet Web site of the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2196 on or before the 15th day before the election.(b) For purposes of verifying a signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition or a signature on a nomination paper or any other election petition or election paper, a properly executed affidavit of registration shall be deemed effective for verification purposes if both of the following conditions are satisfied:(1) The affidavit is signed on the same date or a date before the signing of the petition or paper.(2) The affidavit is received by the county elections official on or before the date on which the petition or paper is filed.© Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the affidavit of registration required under this chapter shall not be taken under sworn oath, but the content of the affidavit shall be certified as to its truthfulness and correctness, under penalty of perjury, by the signature of the affiant.(d) A person who is at least 16 years of age and otherwise meets all eligibility requirements to vote may submit his or her affidavit of registration as prescribed by this section. A properly executed affidavit of registration made pursuant to this subdivision shall be deemed effective as of the date the affiant will be 18 years of age, if the information in the affidavit of registration is still current at that time. If the information provided by the affiant in the affidavit of registration is not current at the time that the affidavit of registration would otherwise become effective, for his or her registration to become effective, the affiant shall provide the current information to the proper county elections official as prescribed by this chapter.(e) An individual with a disability who is otherwise qualified to vote may complete an affidavit of registration with reasonable accommodations as needed.(f) An individual with a disability who is under a conservatorship may be registered to vote if he or she has not been disqualified from voting.SEC. 3. Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 2260) is added to Division 2 of the Elections Code, to read:CHAPTER 4.5. California New Motor Voter Program2260. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the California New Motor Voter Program.2261. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) Voter registration is one of the biggest barriers to participation in our democracy.(b) In 1993, Congress enacted the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 20501 et seq.), commonly known as the “Motor Voter Law,” with findings recognizing that the right of citizens to vote is a fundamental right; it is the duty of federal, state, and local governments to promote the exercise of the right to vote; and the primary purpose of the act is to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote.© It is the intent of the Legislature to enact the California New Motor Voter Program to provide California citizens additional opportunities to participate in democracy through exercise of their fundamental right to vote.2262. (a) The Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehicles shall establish the California New Motor Voter Program for the purpose of increasing opportunities for voter registration by any person who is qualified to be a voter under Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution.(b) This chapter shall not be construed as requiring the Department of Motor Vehicles to determine eligibility for voter registration and voting. The Secretary of State is solely responsible for determining eligibility for voter registration and voting.2263. (a) The Department of Motor Vehicles, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall establish a schedule and method for the department to electronically provide to the Secretary of State the records specified in this section.(b) (1) The department shall provide to the Secretary of State, in a manner and method to be determined by the department in consultation with the Secretary of State, the following information associated with each person who submits an application for a driver’s license or identification card pursuant to Section 12800, 12815, or 13000 of the Vehicle Code, or who notifies the department of a change of address pursuant to Section 14600 of the Vehicle Code:(A) Name.(B) Date of birth.© Either or both of the following, as contained in the department’s records:(i) Residence address.(ii) Mailing address.(D) Digitized signature, as described in Section 12950.5 of the Vehicle Code.(E) Telephone number, if available.(F) Email address, if available.(G) Language preference.(H) Political party preference.(I) Whether the person chooses to become a permanent vote by mail voter.(J) Whether the person affirmatively declined to become registered to vote during a transaction with the department.(K) A notation that the applicant has attested that he or she meets all voter eligibility requirements, including United States citizenship, specified in Section 2101.(L) Other information specified in regulations implementing this chapter.(2) (A) The department may provide the records described in paragraph (1) to the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State certifies that all of the conditions set forth in subdivision (e) of this section have been satisfied. Records provided pursuant to this paragraph shall only be used for the purposes of outreach and education to eligible voters conducted by the Secretary of State.(B) The Secretary shall provide materials created for purposes of outreach and education as described in this paragraph in languages other than English, as required by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10503).© The Secretary of State shall not sell, transfer or allow any third party access to the information acquired from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to this chapter without approval of the department, except as permitted by this chapter and Section 2194.(d) The department shall not electronically provide records of a person who applies for or is issued a driver’s license pursuant to Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code because he or she is unable to submit satisfactory proof that his or her presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.(e) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall commence implementation of this section no later than one year after the Secretary of State certifies all of the following:(1) The State has a statewide voter registration database that complies with the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. Section 20901 et seq.).(2) The Legislature has appropriated the funds necessary for the Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehicles to implement and maintain the California New Motor Voter Program.(3) The regulations required by Section 2270 have been adopted.(f) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall not electronically provide records pursuant to this section that contain a home address designated as confidential pursuant to Section 1808.2, 1808.4, or 1808.6 of the Vehicle Code.2264. (a) The willful, unauthorized disclosure of information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to Section 2263 to any person, or the use of any false representation to obtain any of that information or the use of any of that information for a purpose other than as stated in Section 2263, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both fine and imprisonment.(b) The Secretary of State shall establish procedures to protect the confidentiality of the information acquired from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to Section 2263. The disclosure of this information shall be governed by the Information Practices Act of 1977 (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1798) of Title 1.8 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code), and the Secretary of State shall account for any disclosures, including those due to security breaches, in accordance with that act.2265. (a) The records of a person designated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2263 shall constitute a completed affidavit of registration and the Secretary of State shall register the person to vote, unless any of the following conditions is satisfied:(1) The person’s records, as described in Section 2263, reflect that he or she affirmatively declined to become registered to vote during a transaction with the Department of Motor Vehicles.(2) The person’s records, as described in Section 2263, do not reflect that he or she has attested to meeting all voter eligibility requirements specified in Section 2101.(3) The Secretary of State determines that the person is ineligible to vote.(b) (1) If a person who is registered to vote pursuant to this chapter does not provide a party preference, his or her party preference shall be designated as “Unknown” and he or she shall be treated as a “No Party Preference” voter.(2) A person whose party preference is designated as “Unknown” pursuant to this subdivision shall not be counted for purposes of determining the total number of voters registered on the specified day preceding an election, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 5100 and subdivision © of Section 5151.2266. A person registered to vote under this chapter may cancel his or her voter registration at any time by any method available to any other registered voter.2267. This chapter does not affect the confidentiality of a person’s voter registration information, which remains confidential pursuant to Section 2194 of this code and Section 6254.4 of the Government Code and for all of the following persons:(a) A victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking pursuant to Section 2166.5.(b) A reproductive health care service provider, employee, volunteer, or patient pursuant to Section 2166.5.© A public safety officer pursuant to Section 2166.7.(d) A person with a life-threatening circumstance upon court order pursuant to Section 2166.2268. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter in the absence of a violation by that person of Section 18100, that person’s registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.2269. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and shall not be guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote pursuant to Section 18560, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.2270. The Secretary of State shall adopt regulations to implement this chapter, including regulations addressing both of the following:(a) A process for canceling the registration of a person who is ineligible to vote, but became registered under the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of any violation by that person of Section 18100.(b) An education and outreach campaign informing voters about the California New Motor Voter Program that the Secretary of State will conduct to implement this chapter. The Secretary may use any public and private funds available for this and shall provide materials created for this outreach and education campaign in languages other than English, as required by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10503).SEC. 4. Section 2.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by Section 6.5 of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of 2014, proposed by both this bill and Senate Bill 589. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, (2) each bill amends Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by Section 6.5 of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of 2014, and (3) this bill is enacted after Senate Bill 589, in which case Section 2 of this bill shall not become operative.SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. 1
Zoraptor Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 Turkey gave US heads-up on Syria operation: Mattis.(dailymail.co.uk) a.arm the Kurdish people b.give legitimate reason to Turkey to attack them Hypocrisy at its finest, or am I missing something here?! I don't know if that's hypocrisy but it was certainly moronic to start talking about arming a 30k 'border force' if they didn't want a response from Erdogan; and much as I dislike the guy the US did patently lie to Erdogan multiple times and their position is mutually contradictory since the YPG and PKK are definitely more than casually linked. In the end Afrin plain ain't important enough to cut Turkey loose over, neither is Manbij, and if the US has to jettison the whole YPG to keep Turkey they'll do it and rely on the ex ISIS guys they're training in Deir Ez Zor to mess with Assad instead. End of the day the US simply didn't/ don't believe they'll have to make any choice and can have their cake and eat it too. Which is a massive misjudgement of exactly how seriously Erdogan takes it. US policy towards the YPG is their overall middle east policy in microcosm- absolutely the worst combination of pie in the sky wishful thinking and cold hearted pragmatism. There are two militias being talked about, the PKK and the YPG. The YPG being the militia of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, an unrecognized quasi-independent and ethnically Kurdish state. Then the communist PKK is a terrorist group to NATO. The YPG is associated with being allied with the US. PKK and YPG share the same philosophy (roughly anarcho-syndicalism, not communism) and the same parent organisation in the KCK, along with the Iranian PJAK. SDF is the militia of the DFNS, the YPG is the main part of the SDF. The YPG has explicitly denied wanting independence- they also have got on spectacularly badly with the Iraqi Kurds' main party which was blockading them up until recently. A lot of dreamers who really don't know the machinations of the higher powers in the region, the likelihood of getting their own state is far off. They're definitely a load of dreamers, they could have avoided being attacked by Turkey fairly easily if they'd agreed to a Russian brokered offer which had already been applied in their Aleppo enclave of Sheikh Maqsoud but decided to fight instead, a fight they will certainly lose. The practical choice was whether they'd get Syrian soldiers- probably not many at all, and at least broadly 'secular'- or the ethno religious dingbats in the Turkish proxy forces after a prolonged military campaign. 1
Ben No.3 Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/worlds-richest-oxfam-billionaire-social-inequality-world-economic-forum-institute-of-economic-a8171151.html?amp Everybody knows the deal is rotten Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton For your ribbons and bows And everybody knows
Guard Dog Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 LOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Malcador Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 LOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing. That's the Independent's headline, though, Oxfam uses 'bagged' and 'went to' which shouldn't be anything for you to get upset over - https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Guard Dog Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 LOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing. That's the Independent's headline, though, Oxfam uses 'bagged' and 'went to' which shouldn't be anything for you to get upset over - https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year It isn't. I'm just tweaking Ben here. I always get a kick out of hearing the commie types cry about how one kid got more cookies than another. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Ben No.3 Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/worlds-richest-oxfam-billionaire-social-inequality-world-economic-forum-institute-of-economic-a8171151.html?amp"It helped spark the sharpest increase in the number of billionaires ever recorded, to 2,043, with one created every two days" This cannot be right. After all one cannot become billionaire other than by inheritance right Ben? huh? I never doubted that people can become rich. Everybody knows the deal is rotten Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton For your ribbons and bows And everybody knows
Ben No.3 Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 LOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing. That's the Independent's headline, though, Oxfam uses 'bagged' and 'went to' which shouldn't be anything for you to get upset over - https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year It isn't. I'm just tweaking Ben here. I always get a kick out of hearing the commie types cry about how one kid got more cookies than another. ah come on, put in some effort here. The complaint is that one kid makes the cookies and the other one gets (almost) all of them just because he owns the oven. Everybody knows the deal is rotten Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton For your ribbons and bows And everybody knows
Ben No.3 Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 You have a very poor understanding of slogansMe and milions around the world. Please enlighten me what this slogan means. the fight to obtain and preserve gun rights is fought much more fiercely than the one to obtain and preserve women’s rights. Everybody knows the deal is rotten Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton For your ribbons and bows And everybody knows
Malcador Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) It isn't. I'm just tweaking Ben here. I always get a kick out of hearing the commie types cry about how one kid got more cookies than another. Does that include anyone commenting about disparity in incomes being an issue ? Heh, these days Câmara's famous quote still seems apt Edited January 22, 2018 by Malcador Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Guard Dog Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 LOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing. That's the Independent's headline, though, Oxfam uses 'bagged' and 'went to' which shouldn't be anything for you to get upset over - https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year It isn't. I'm just tweaking Ben here. I always get a kick out of hearing the commie types cry about how one kid got more cookies than another.ah come on, put in some effort here. The complaint is that one kid makes the cookies and the other one gets (almost) all of them just because he owns the oven. Then tell the kid that makes the cookies to buy an oven and make cookies for himself. People do that every single day. Heck the guy that owns the oven he's using now did that at some point. Or someone in his family did. The way I see it you have two choices. You can whine about who gets cookies or you can make your own cookies. Well I guess there is a third choice. Enact a government that kills than man with the oven, takes over the cookie factory and gives everyone a cookie. If there are enough to go around. If not... oh well. But even if there is I hope you like the cookie you're getting because they will never get any better and there will never be any variety. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Ben No.3 Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 LOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing.That's the Independent's headline, though, Oxfam uses 'bagged' and 'went to' which shouldn't be anything for you to get upset over - https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year It isn't. I'm just tweaking Ben here. I always get a kick out of hearing the commie types cry about how one kid got more cookies than another. ah come on, put in some effort here. The complaint is that one kid makes the cookies and the other one gets (almost) all of them just because he owns the oven.The complaint is that kids owning the ovens and baking get cookies and the kids that don't want ovens and refuse to bake don't get cookies. you have a very poor understanding of Marxist theory Everybody knows the deal is rotten Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton For your ribbons and bows And everybody knows
Guard Dog Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 It's an amazing thing about communist countries. They provide food for their people but there has never been one where people didn't starve to death by the millions. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Ben No.3 Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 LOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing.That's the Independent's headline, though, Oxfam uses 'bagged' and 'went to' which shouldn't be anything for you to get upset over - https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year It isn't. I'm just tweaking Ben here. I always get a kick out of hearing the commie types cry about how one kid got more cookies than another.ah come on, put in some effort here. The complaint is that one kid makes the cookies and the other one gets (almost) all of them just because he owns the oven. Then tell the kid that makes the cookies to buy an oven and make cookies for himself. People do that every single day. Heck the guy that owns the oven he's using now did that at some point. Or someone in his family did. The way I see it you have two choices. You can whine about who gets cookies or you can make your own cookies. Well I guess there is a third choice. Enact a government that kills than man with the oven, takes over the cookie factory and gives everyone a cookie. If there are enough to go around. If not... oh well. But even if there is I hope you like the cookie you're getting because they will never get any better and there will never be any variety. but what if ovens are really expensive? They’re just kids, they’re definitely not at fault for the conditions they’re living under. And it isn’t good for the kid with the oven either. He is born into his role as well, which forces him into an, fundamentally, unnecessary antagonism with all the other kids. That poor, lonely kid. Just because he has an oven. And why would we have to kill him? If I’m not mistaken, government takes away people’s money, as you’d say, all the time without resorting to violence. Besides, I’d argue the original scenario is actually a much more violent one Everybody knows the deal is rotten Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton For your ribbons and bows And everybody knows
Ben No.3 Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) It's an amazing thing about communist countries. They provide food for their people but there has never been one where people didn't starve to death by the millions. people weren’t starving in East Germany though. Or in Yugoslavia. Edit: right. Sorry. More single posts Edited January 22, 2018 by Ben No.3 Everybody knows the deal is rotten Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton For your ribbons and bows And everybody knows
smjjames Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) It's an amazing thing about communist countries. They provide food for their people but there has never been one where people didn't starve to death by the millions.people weren’t starving in East Germany though. Or in Yugoslavia. He's obviously being tongue-in-cheek and is referring to when Mao attempted to do collective farming and ended up causing a massive famine. Also, as for the earlier analogy, the communist country ends up allocating too many ovens and very few oven mitts. Edited January 22, 2018 by smjjames
Recommended Posts