Minnesotans support immigration reform:
8* Suppose the new Arizona immigration law was being considered for your state. Would you favor or oppose passage of that law in your state?
53% Favor34% Oppose
14% Not sure
9* Suppose a police officer stops someone for a traffic violation or a violation of some other law. If the police officer suspects that the person they stopped might be an illegal immigrant, should the officer be required to check their immigration status?
62% Yes
27% No
11% Not sure
Like most people, Republicans have always supported letting people into this country the same way most of our anscestors, from all countries, came here; through the door. Legally. With the full expectation that they would assimilate into American culture – learning the language, the history, and what made this country important.
Like most Americans, Republicans believe that immigrating to America is an opportunity, not an entitlement.
So yes,
My response to that server would be (8) Favor, and (9) Yes
The need to distract from the reality that is the failed Emmer campaign is noted. But Immigration isn’t an issue that will do anything more than fire up your base, it certainly won’t swing moderate voters even if they support you on that particular issue.
Waitergate and the continued conversation regarding the Tip Penalty hits hard working Minnesotans personally, right in the pocket book. I’ve heard the phrase “What an idiot” from Republicans and Conservative regarding Emmer ever since his gaff, so I guess there is a need to reel the base back in. Did you pay Erickson personally, or was it an under the table off the book kind of thing LOL*
Flash
*I don’t think for a second Erickson’s actions were anything more than those of a complete arrogant egotistical idiot!
Hey Flash, while your up there in the rectum of the DFL you should check for pollups.
Thanks.
I just love the level of discourse from the Right when they know they are wrong. Looky here, looky here, nothing to see over there, looky here LOL The left is awful at that form of gamesmanship.
Flash
The left is awful at that form of gamesmanship.
But they sure try it all the time….Immigration sure, but hey look at the Emmer campaign.
when they know they are wrong
Objection: Based on facts not in evidence.
We know we’re right.
I’ll await Flash’s inevitable “Ah, so you must be a DFLer then!” response. 😉
I don’t think for a second Erickson’s actions were anything more than those of a complete arrogant egotistical idiot!
Right. Good.
And you know darn well that you are far enough to the center that wide swathes of the DFL would disown you in a heartbeat.
And while you are one of those rare, responsible, sentient DFLers, you’ll note that MAK, Brave Sir Mark and those two other guys haven’t condemned Ryan The Temp yet, either…
“”Objection: Based on facts not in evidence.””
See Dave Strom’s Tweet, somthing like “After today, no more on the Tip ‘credit’ (ed- Actually a penalty to the server) we can’t win this one”
flash;
Like Mitch, I perceive you as a decent person.
Therefore, I think that you will have to admit, some of the rhetoric and messages from the DFL candidates are pretty idiotic. I mean, Mark Dayton’s platform of tax the rich? Paalease!
See Dave Strom’s Tweet, somthing like “After today, no more on the Tip ‘credit’
Er…so what? Strom – a pundit and campaign volunteer – tweeted about…campaign stuff. Big deal.
(ed- Actually a penalty to the server)
Well, yes and no. It’s an allowance for the fact that the server’s wages are not from the employer, and allows the employer a break for that fact, for the server’s tippable time.
But who cares. It’s off the table now.
Let’s talk immigration!
“…the failed Emmer campaign…”
It’s JULY.
Perspective: it’s not just a cheap trick employed by MC Escher.
tax the rich?
Tax the working rich, mind you; raise income taxes on people who earn what a good lawyer or doctor or middle-management power couple earns, or on what a modestly-successful entrepreneur puts on their Schedule C.
Not on trust fund babies whose “income” is almost entirely dividends and capital gains.
Just so’s we’re accurate here.
To quote Chris Baker’s question to Tom Emmer while he spoke to him on his program this morning; “Did Mark Dayton swoop in and grab half of those pennies for taxes?”
Chris who?
🙂
That was funny…
I just think it’s amusing that in a post about polls regarding immigration, Flash starts trumpeting “Emmer! Emmer! Waitergate! Emmer!”
I imagine if the topic was inadequate storm sewer drainage, Flash would be trumpeting “Emmer! Emmer! Waitergate! Emmer!”
I checked the DFL dictionary – word “illegal” is not there. Honest!
“”I just think it’s amusing that in a post about polls regarding immigration, Flash starts trumpeting “Emmer! Emmer! Waitergate! Emmer!”””
The headline of this post is a play off the previous screed clearly indicating a desire to shift the conversation from the issue you are losing to something else. It was Mitch’s play on words that allowed for the on topic comment of mine.
Glad I could clear that up LOL
Flash
a desire to shift the conversation…
…to an issue that matters, that Minnesota cares about, and that the DFL is wrong about.
Absolutely!
I can see how a DFLer might wanna avoid that.
Say Flash?
How many murderers, rapists, and robbers does it take to get a scumbag Democrat elected to the US Senate?
Pffft.
I can not wait until the next time some moonbat says “There is no evidence of election fraud!” or “We have the cleanest election system in the country, we don’t need no stinking voter ID”.
Flash? Any words of wisdom re: Senator* Scumbag?
Anything? Tell again about how Senator Scumbag had nothing to do with ripping off a kid’s charity?
Hello, is this thing on?
Bueller?
LOL!
Mitch, I don’t consider immigration a ‘bread and butter’ issue as much as threatening the income of hard working Minnesotan’s. We may agree on the immigration issue itself, but not necessarily on the read of the electorate on its factor.
Tom, I only have this to add. The only KNOWN vote in the case of an ineligible ex felon voting:
=
http://www.startribune.com/politics/37219649.html
Convicted felon voted, and there’s no turning back
Once the Warroad man put his ballot – marked for Coleman – into the
machine, there was no retrieving it.
==
Mitch, I don’t consider immigration a ‘bread and butter’ issue as much as threatening the income of hard working Minnesotan’s. We may agree on the immigration issue itself, but not necessarily on the read of the electorate on its factor.
True, but your opinions and our discussion isn’t the issue. The Dems obviously think it’s bread and butter enough to have the feds sue a state…over enforcing a law identical to federal law. And “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” thinks it’s “Bread and Butter” enough to spend months trying to tie Emmer to Arizona’s law (which is fine, since 53% of Minnesotans agree with the law)
Tom, I only have this to add. The only KNOWN vote in the case of an ineligible ex felon voting:
…is an interesting and predictable diversion on the media’s part, one I suspect they’ve been holding off on for months against just this sort of story, notwithstanding the fact that studies show convicted felons do in fact vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
The only KNOWN vote in the case of an ineligible ex felon voting
HAHAHAHAAAAAA! That is some high-steppin’ asshat dancin’, moonbat Flash! May I step up the tempo a bit?
“Phil Carruthers of the Ramsey County attorney’s office said “So far we have charged 28 people with felonies, have 17 more under review and have 182 cases still open,” he said. “And there is a good chance we may match or even exceed their numbers.”
Do some more!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa!
Hey, Flash, can you ask Gigi who the convener for the Democrat caucus on cell block A is? We want to know what margin Senator* Scumbag ran away with their endorsement by.
Word on the street it was 312 votes….
ROTFLMAO!
But Sir Thomas, Who did those people actually vote for. So far the count is Norm Coleman 1, Senator Al Franken – 0
Flash, you seem like a sensible sort of person, so all I have to say is…
I just love the level of discourse from the Left when they know they are wrong. Looky here, looky here, (Tom Emmer, immigration, racism, teabaggers, starving the Children, punish The Rich…) nothing to see over there, looky here LOL.
The left is awful at that form of gamesmanship. No doubt about it. But that doesn’t stop them.
Mitch wrote:
“notwithstanding the fact that studies show convicted felons do in fact vote overwhelmingly Democratic.”
Could you show us those studies Mitch? A list, with links would be ideal.
It makes some sense to have a stardized approach to felons getting their rights to vote back or not getting them, in all states as equal protection, etc.
Personally, I don’t agree that felons SHOULD get their voting rights back, ever. However in the few cases where there is any question of felons voting, it appears to be where there is a question about their probationary status or at least where there is a claim that the voter was misinformed about their status. That number is closer to 20 than 100, and does not appear usually to have been an attempt to knowingly vote improperly or illegally.
That hasn’t been enough to swing any election, including Franken’s. IF – still IF – any of these felons voted, whatever studies show people tend to do – – and I question if there have been enough studies to be conclusive — it doesn’t show or prove who any of these felons in question voted for in 2008.
In any case, those votes could have been challenged by Coleman, and they were not, so his bad for not dealing with it when he had the legal option.
As to immigration issues, illegal aliens working for below minimum wage depress wages for everyone else. So…..yes, the two topics do legitimately tie together. Good job Flash!
flash said:
“Who did those people actually vote for”
Convicted felons? I wonder who has a reputation for being softer on the “convicted felon” constituency?
The Strib and flash are awfully quick to accept the word of a convicted felon that he voted for Norm Coleman.
It’s as if there were something motivating them to overlook any problem with accepting the word of a convicted felon for something no one can prove.
I wonder if they both would be so quick to accept this convicted felons word if he said he’d voted for Al Franken?
Hehe — I kid.
In any case, those votes could have been challenged by Coleman, and they were not
Doggie, Carpetbagger Al had a 4 to 1 ratio of lawyers over Coleman. There’s only so much you can do when Mark Ritchie is a partisan player in that game.
In any case, those votes could have been challenged by Coleman, and they were not, so his bad for not dealing with it when he had the legal option.
Plank #1 of the Democrat Party platform: “It’s not a crime if they don’t catch us”
Plank #2 of the Democrat Party platform: “If they do catch us, it’s raaaaacism!”
“In any case, those votes could have been challenged by Coleman, ”
Yes, because a convicted felon who hasn’t had his civil rights restored would indicate that fact on his ballot. How could Coleman’s team have missed that!?
**facepalm**
We’ll never know who they voted for, moonbat Flash.
But I’d bet $100 that if you asked 100 regular people, 90 of them believe that those felons voted for Senator* Scumbag. That’s because people know the Party of Scrubs stands for corruption.
Nice party you have there, moonbat Flash.
Did I say scumbags support the Party of Scrubs?
HECKER, DENNIS
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 SELF EMPLOYED/CAR DEALERSHIP
$2,300 01/11/2008 P AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE – Democrat Farm Labor
Even felons in training voted for Senator* Scumbag! LOL!
So the DFL is shown conclusively to be wrong on the issue of enforcing immigration law, so Flash diverts attention to the fact that the DFL is also wrong on how tips are taxed? Did I get that right?
And if we want to argue about wages, well, let’s take a poll. Given a choice between slightly lower wages, or no wages at all, which do we choose? Minimum wage laws do indeed destroy jobs, especially for the most vulnerable, by raising pay over benefit of having that person working. You can see that most horrifically in the inner city, where marginally skilled youth have horrendous unemployment rates.
I guess Democrats would rather have those young men and women committing crimes and going to jail than to have them earn less than $7.25 per hour.
Fine, Sir Tom, but these types generally hedge their bets. Oh, Looky here:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/dennis-hecker.asp?cycle=08
HECKER, DENNIS E. MR.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 HECKER AUTOMOTIVE/OWNER $20,000 07/10/2008 P MCCAIN VICTORY 2008 – Republican
HECKER, DENNIS
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 WALDON AUTOMOTIVE GROUP/OWNER $-1,100 06/30/2007 P COLEMAN FOR SENATE 08 – Republican
HECKER, DENNIS
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 WALDON AUTOMOTIVE GROUP/OWNER $1,100 06/30/2007 G COLEMAN FOR SENATE 08 – Republican
HECKER, DENNIS
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 WALDON AUTOMOTIVE GROUP/OWNER $1,100 06/02/2007 P COLEMAN FOR SENATE 08 – Republican
Hecker, Dennis
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 Denny Hecker Auto/Owner $5,000 06/01/2007 P NORTHSTAR LEADERSHIP PAC – Republican
HECKER, DENNIS E. MR.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 WALDEN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP/C.E.O. $-1,150 05/22/2007 P RUDY GIULIANI PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE INC – Republican
HECKER, DENNIS E. MR.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 WALDEN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP/C.E.O. $2,300 05/21/2007 P RUDY GIULIANI PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE INC – Republican
HECKER, DENNIS
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 DENNY HECKER AUTOMOBILE/OWNER $-1,200 03/31/2007 P COLEMAN FOR SENATE 08 – Republican
HECKER, DENNIS
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 DENNY HECKER AUTOMOBILE/OWNER $1,200 03/31/2007 G COLEMAN FOR SENATE 08 – Republican
HECKER, DENNIS
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 DENNY HECKER AUTOMOBILE/OWNER $2,500 03/21/2007 P COLEMAN FOR SENATE 08 – Republican
HECKER, DENNIS E. MR.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55426 WALDEN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP/C.E.O. $1,150 03/15/2007 P RUDY GIULIANI PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE INC – Republican
flash said:
“these types generally”
Wow. Stereotypes OK for businessmen, Not OK for convicted felons. I guess we all have our standards. *shrug*
DG,
Could you show us those studies Mitch?
I provided a link in the comment above, to a story that included links to a number of studies as well as some electoral history; re-enfranchised felons voted for Bill Clinton to the tune of 86 and 93% in his elections, for instance.
So…..yes, the two topics do legitimately tie together. Good job Flash!
Yeah. Good job!
Of course, one party supports illegal immigration as a right for all the world’s citizens, while another at least pays lip service (and, I suspect, after this November, much more) to the notion of the kind of sovereignty that’ll make that right, if pursued with some conviction.
So by all means, let’s talk about it!
Hey flush, a felon said you gave a massage to Albert Gore. Heh heh heh
“threatening the income of hard working Minnesotan’s”
I’m glad to see Flash realizes what truly matters and is coming out against Dayton’s plans to tax “the rich.”
Not “the rich”, Chad. “The Earners”. Damn them anyway!
I went to look up and read those studies you refer to Mitch.
The people making claims about them don’t seem to have actually read them — or not read them very well. They don’t for example support the claims by Minnesota Majority (including Emmer btw) or TPaw about felon voting.
What the studies are tracking is the voting patterns of felons AFTER they are legally able to vote again. NOT illegal voting. The study from the MN Soc professor for example states “Surely some disenfranchised felons have cast ballots, although occasional charges of fraudulent voting have not, upon further investigation, produced significant evidence of illegal voting.”
This study supports the statement by government that these claims of voter fraud are incorrect when investigated, that actual voter fraud is pretty darn rare – not the hundreds or thousands MM is claiming at all.
A big part of the problem with how these studies are being used is the word felon. The studies, when you read them are very clear that they refer to people who were convicted of felonies, lost their right to vote for a time, and then GOT THAT RIGHT BACK. They make it clear they are talking about EX-felons, not people who are currently disenfranchised while in jail or on probation.
These studies also indicate that for the few current not ex-felons who may vote illegally (not necessarily intentionally, but over confusion for example in shortened probation periods) that FAR MORE LEGALLY FRANCHISED voters who have had felonies are disenfranchised all over again by incorrect purging of them from the voter registration rolls.
The study actually makes the claim that (ex) felons are being DISENFRANCHISED ILLEGALLY, not voting illegally. Those court cases I was mentioning earlier back that up, and the overwhelming majority were connected to the GOP in trying to stop legal voters from voting.
Pen and I wrote something on this, but I think it will be well worth trying to interview the U of MN professor directly.
In the meantime, shame on those who are trying to use these studies to claim something the studies do not in fact support.
But thanks Mitch for the heads up about them. It turns out the whole subject of disenfranchisement is more interesting than I expected.
Will you be correcting that misinformatin Mitch? Given that Emmer and other GOP figures are the one of those making those incorrect statements? I hope so, because I believe you are an honest man.
You wanna stand by the premise that convicted felons who vote overwhelmingly tic after they get the right to vote back vote Republican before, you just go for it.
There is nothing to “correct” yet, DG.
The Ramsey County attorney has a pile of cases on their table, 20-odd convictions behind ’em, and that’s just one county. This story is just beginning.
I don’t care whether felons put Franken over the top. We lost, move on.
Move on to making sure it doesn’t happen again. No felons should get to vote. Why did they? Because nobody checked their right to cast a vote before their vote was cast. Why not? Because we have same-day registration.
If you registered a month before the election, the election workers would have time to run your name against the database. Same-day registration knowingly opens a loophole for felons to vote, and have their votes counted (and recounted) and included in the winner’s tally before anybody investigates to see whether the votes were properly cast.
And who favors keeping open the same-day registration felon loophole?
Democrats. Why?
Could be an overwhelming commitment to principle. Or could be because illegal voters are one of their core constituencies. As DG points out, it’s hard to say right now. I see her desire for more felons to come forward to confess to having committed voting crimes so we know who they illegally voted for, but somehow, that seems unlikely to me.
In the absence of proof, we can look at the facts and draw the obvious conclusion. Senator Franken – the candidate of choice for your better class of felons. Proudly serving the criminal community since 2010.
.
“…incorrect statements?”
Deegee, please provide an actual quote.
The studies, when you read them are very clear that they refer to people who were convicted of felonies, lost their right to vote for a time, and then GOT THAT RIGHT BACK. They make it clear they are talking about EX-felons, not people who are currently disenfranchised while in jail or on probation.
Oh. My. God.
A felon is someone who has committed a felony. There is no such thing as an “ex-FELON”.
This, unfortunately, is the quality of writing on Penigma’s blog. It is simply a waste of time to read this crap.
Like most people, Republicans have always supported letting people into this country the same way most of our anscestors, from all countries, came here; through the door. Legally.
Sure, but it was a helluva lot easier going “through the door” a hundred years ago. And I don’t remember Ellis Island, at its busiest, ever having an INS-like backlog- do you?
With the full expectation that they would assimilate into American culture – learning the language, the history, and what made this country important.
Sure, but whose fault is that, besides the postmodern hippies that gave us bilingual education and an otherwise pathetic K-12 education system?
Like most Americans, Republicans believe that immigrating to America is an opportunity, not an entitlement.
I dunno, can’t it be both (especially for Latin America)? I’m not otherwise too keen on entitlements, but I’m perfectly happy for people to feel “entitled” to come here (if they really want to).