Dillards 83: WTG JILL - PUBLIC SCHOOL!!!

[Seculardaisy]

12 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

https://voterrecords.com/ has people's voter registrations - it's public in the states that are listed on the homepage. Looks like Michigan is included. I look up people's registration information all the time - it's also useful to gather addresses and spouses names, and who used to live at certain addresses. It's pretty accurate. 

I looked myself up it just says that I have no known political party affiliation. 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Seculardaisy

[seraaa]

2 hours ago, Seculardaisy said:

I looked myself up it just says that I have no known political party affiliation. 

I am now obsessed with this, thank you!

 

 

[HeartsAFundie]

17 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

https://voterrecords.com/ has people's voter registrations - it's public in the states that are listed on the homepage. Looks like Michigan is included. I look up people's registration information all the time - it's also useful to gather addresses and spouses names, and who used to live at certain addresses. It's pretty accurate. 

My state (MA) surprisingly is not listed.  However, Arkansas is listed on there, so I would imagine that was how the Duggars' party affiliations were outed.  

[SilverBeach]

5 hours ago, Seculardaisy said:

I looked myself up it just says that I have no known political party affiliation. 

Neither Illinois nor Indiana are included on the voter records site.

Edited March 8, 2020 by SilverBeach

[JDuggs]

1 hour ago, SilverBeach said:

Neither Illinois nor Indiana are included on the voter records site.

In Illinois, the information is accessible, but maybe not online. I served as a precinct committeeperson and I was given a list of all the voters in my precinct showing which elections they voted in and if a Republican or Democrat ballot was chosen for the primaries. This information was requested for my use, but not by me, so I don’t exactly know how to get it. It’s possibly a Freedom of Information Act request. 

[JanasTattooParlor]

Sooooo, Derick has been commenting on an old post of his on Instagram that he indeed does have a book that he’s working on that is a tell-all about what they’ve gone through the last six years. I know we’ve talked about them doing it but it looks like we might actually get one! I’m actually kinda interested in if he’ll follow through with it and if so, how soon it will come out. Screenshots of comments under spoilers.

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by JanasTattooParlor
Formatting spoiler

[Idlewild]

7 minutes ago, JanasTattooParlor said:

Sooooo, Derick has been commenting on an old post of his on Instagram that he indeed does have a book that he’s working on that is a tell-all about what they’ve gone through the last six years. I know we’ve talked about them doing it but it looks like we might actually get one! I’m actually kinda interested in if he’ll follow through with it and if so, how soon it will come out. Screenshots of comments under spoilers.

  Hide contents

 

 

 

We’ll see. I have a feeling this will be a highly sanitised version of events.

I expect he’ll gloss over why he wanted a rich reality TV person with eligible daughters as his ‘prayer partner’, the grifting for money and the comments about Jazz and Nate as well as his career hopping. We know Jill still has a relationship with her family so I’m not sure he will be sticking the knife in too deep. I expect just a few details to pique interest but the rest will be a yawn fest about how wonderful their marriage is, how smart Jill is and how much cleverer he is than Jeremy.

i wonder if he floated this idea a while back and got an advance- hence being able to buy the house and run 2 cars on a pizza delivery wage.

[PennySycamore]

19 hours ago, finnlassie said:

This whole system seems to make it even more impossible for the US to get out of two party favouritism/system.

The problem is not so much in how our voting system, but that we are not set up to form coalition governments.  The two political parties are already coalitions: the Republicans are a coalition of gun nuts, many evangelicals. racists, bigots of various stripes while the Democratic Party is a coalition of progressives, centrists, blacks, women, LGBTQ, people who care about the social safety net and so on.  Quite a few of us are socialist in leaning if not in party .  Third parties tend to act as spoilers in US elections.  

A few years ago, the South Carolina Democratic Party passed a resolution that would enable candidates to run both as a Democrat and as a member of another minority party.  (In this case, the Woking Family Party.)  You could not run as both a Democrat and as a Repug, however.  The minority party's ideals could not be in opposition to those of the Democratic Party.  

Back 45 years ago, I was a member of Coalition Party at the University of Georgia and ran for student senate twice.  Our theme song, written by the late, great Phil Sanderlin was Radical Days:

Radical days are here again

Fat Fred will live in fear again*

We'll have more pot, less beer and gin

Radical days are here again!

 

We don't need rednecks or Greeks

We got gays, blacks, women and freaks!

*Alternatively, you could sing "The cops will live in fear again".  Some of the founder of Coalition were members of the Athens 8 who were arrested for sitting in the President Fred Davison's office.   Also, several members of Coalition were members of Greek organizations.

[ItsAllOver]

21 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

https://voterrecords.com/ has people's voter registrations - it's public in the states that are listed on the homepage. Looks like Michigan is included. I look up people's registration information all the time - it's also useful to gather addresses and spouses names, and who used to live at certain addresses. It's pretty accurate. 

I think I must have stumbled upon this or something similar while trying to find my new poling place a few years ago. I had only been there once since the move, I couldn't find my registration card, and the voting information site was crashing, so I did a lot of backdoor digging trying to find something that would remind me of the name of the church. I was looking for MYSELF, but I discovered I could look up the addresses of family and friends ?. Some of them are still registered to vote at addresses they haven't lived at for decades! While where we live is not generally highly private for most of us, I can definitely see that as potentially dangerous if all you need to find someone's address is her name. We're taught from a young age not to make our addresses public online, but now any disgruntled date or potential stalker can find that information.

19 hours ago, finnlassie said:

This whole system seems to make it even more impossible for the US to get out of two party favouritism/system.

I can't even express how much I agree with you. I am getting really tired of feeling like I'm holding my nose while I vote or picking the lesser of two evils while the sanctimonious and crusty stand by and harp about how directing votes toward a third party candidate (i.e. someone whose beliefs actually represent yours) is just helping the 'enemy' side to win.

[FleeJanaFree]

I'm ashamed to say I'd totally read Derrick's version of reality because I'm dying to know and fundie-watching is my version of People magazine. However, I am 100% not giving him my money; it'll be from the Library. I still think he's an ass. I'd love to know his mental gymnastics for a few things in particular, though...

[Giraffe]

I’d read his book with low expectations of getting anything juicy. But I’d still read it. 

[Snarkasarus Rex]

I just don’t see how a Dillard ‘tell-a-few-tidbits’ would warrant an a traditional book deal...it’s not like he had a literary agent shopping his idea around.  I think it’s more likely he’s going to self-publish like Cathy did. 

[Antipatriarch]

On 3/7/2020 at 9:39 AM, FluffySnowball said:

Do you think that might actually be a reason behind the system; to discourage people from casting their vote?

No, I don't. And to be fair, the other side of the argument has some validity. As others pointed out, primaries are a party thing. When I turned 18 and first started to vote, there was this sense that you "belonged to a party". In our state, you at least went to a caucus, voted for the party nominee, and chose people to send to the statewide convention (where they would cast your precinct's choice/vote for the party's nominee). You could be even more involved by helping shape the party platform. But philosophically, the idea is that the people who "belong to the party" and care about it get to write its platform and choose its nominee.

In the modern age when most states are switching to primaries, people don't so much think this way. The idea now is more straight democratic: "I, as an individual, should be able to vote for whoever I want." And if anyone can vote in any party's primary, then they can do things like strategically crossing the aisle (as @nausicaa pointed out): If I'm a Republican at heart, I can vote e.g. for Warren in the Democratic primary -- not because I support the Democratic Party or like Warren, but because I think she'll be the easiest for Trump to beat. I think it's fair for a party to say: We don't want someone like that parachuting in and messing with our choice of nomination.

What's changed for me is (1) the privacy of my participation in a party is no longer being respected, and (2) I honestly can't sign this new affirmation that I'm generally in agreement with the principles of either of our political parties. So "independent" fits me best, and not participating in either party's activities seems the best fit for my integrity.

23 hours ago, finnlassie said:

This whole system seems to make it even more impossible for the US to get out of two party favouritism/system.

One of the best things we could do is implement ranked-choice voting (sometimes called "instant runoff voting") at the national level. Among its advantages: (1) It lets you vote for the candidate you really want as your first choice, without worrying that if they don't win, you'll have "wasted your vote". (2) As early/absentee voting grows in popularity, you won't run the risk of voting for someone and then having them drop out just before election day. It's a little more complicated ballot, but in places (like the city votes in Minneapolis and St. Paul) where they've implemented it, people do get used to it.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Antipatriarch
credit nausicaa

[mpheels]

On the same lines of ranked choice voting, we could use “approval” voting for primaries. With approval voting, you mark a ballot to indicate which candidates you approve of (or do not object to). The candidate with the most approvals (i.e. votes) wins, but it lets people approve/disapprove multiple candidates. So if two candidates each have support from 1/3 of the electorate as thier first choice, but everyone agrees on the same second choice, the second choice wins. This approach is mentally easier than ranked choice since it requires a simple yes/no vote for each candidate separately.

[PennySycamore]

@Giraffe, the thing is, though, that voting third party does have consequences in making it more likely that the less desirable candidate wins.  If you don't like either party, but one is a bit more aligned with you philosophically, GET INVOLVED and hopefully change things!!  On the local level, on the state level.  

The Greenville County Democratic Party is holding precinct reorganization meetings this Saturday morning.  We choose officers for the precinct and those go to the county convention. In my particular precinct, it's basically who volunteers.  There is an effort to get people of diverse backgrounds and this is the rule at the county and state levels.  (This keeps all officers from being all old white guys.)   You also have the opportunity to submit platform planks to the county convention.  These then get voted on there.  What the county convention passes gets submitted to the state party and is voted on by the delegates to the state convention in Columbia.  Several years ago before marriage equality became the law of the land, the county party and then the state party voted in favor of marriage equality.  This was in South Carolina, fergoshsakes!

[Giraffe]

Hi @PennySycamore, did you mean to tag someone else instead?

[grandmadugger]

I hate that my party affiliation is public. I don’t subscribe to either party. I am pretty much as center as you can get. I am affiliated with the Republican Party because it is the only way I can do my part to keep trump republicans off the ballot. Primaries are the only time I vote a party ticket. Other than that I vote for whoever is the best person for the job. 

Back in the day the paper would print absentee ballot results separate. My dad was the only absentee voter so his vote was always published separate. It pissed him off so bad. 

[viii]

4 hours ago, Snarkasarus Rex said:

I just don’t see how a Dillard ‘tell-a-few-tidbits’ would warrant an a traditional book deal...it’s not like he had a literary agent shopping his idea around.  I think it’s more likely he’s going to self-publish like Cathy did. 

I disagree. There are a lot of people out there who sell their memoirs through traditional publishing houses and they’re less known then Derrick. I think if he’s advertising it as a tell all, someone will publish it and there will be an audience for it (half of it here lol)

[patsymae]

7 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

The problem is not so much in how our voting system, but that we are not set up to form coalition governments.  The two political parties are already coalitions: the Republicans are a coalition of gun nuts, many evangelicals. racists, bigots of various stripes while the Democratic Party is a coalition of progressives, centrists, blacks, women, LGBTQ, people who care about the social safety net and so on.  Quite a few of us are socialist in leaning if not in party .  Third parties tend to act as spoilers in US elections.  

A few years ago, the South Carolina Democratic Party passed a resolution that would enable candidates to run both as a Democrat and as a member of another minority party.  (In this case, the Woking Family Party.)  You could not run as both a Democrat and as a Repug, however.  The minority party's ideals could not be in opposition to those of the Democratic Party.  

Back 45 years ago, I was a member of Coalition Party at the University of Georgia and ran for student senate twice.  Our theme song, written by the late, great Phil Sanderlin was Radical Days:

Radical days are here again

Fat Fred will live in fear again*

We'll have more pot, less beer and gin

Radical days are here again!

 

We don't need rednecks or Greeks

We got gays, blacks, women and freaks!

*Alternatively, you could sing "The cops will live in fear again".  Some of the founder of Coalition were members of the Athens 8 who were arrested for sitting in the President Fred Davison's office.   Also, several members of Coalition were members of Greek organizations.

But coalition governments have their own problems. One example I can think of is Israel, where the Haredi parties have far more political power than their numbers would warrant. And although I guess it's technically a two-party system, the fact that the Tory Party in the UK needs the Unionists from Northern Ireland to stay in power is a huge problem if you're not a Unionist.

[Sullie06]

On 3/7/2020 at 6:54 AM, finnlassie said:

How do you know it was Unenrolled? I mean, this is just general wondering... because it seems like a lot of people in the States know what other people have voted for??? What in the heckaroni is that even?? Here in Finland voting and party secrecy is a pretty sacred thing, I honestly don't know how most of my friends vote.

My father has always stressed to me that it's nobody's business how you vote and that you should keep that information to yourself. I always find it weird when people are so open about it because I was raised that you should never have to justify your choice because nobody else should know or care how you vote. 

[BemusedByFundamentalism]

Well well well, Derick was congratulated for his birthday on Instagram by the Duggarfam account.

I will say this makes me happy for Jill, although we don't know if this is just for appearances or sincere. 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by BemusedByFundamentalism

[xenobia]

I just saw the birthday post. Totally just for appearances, IMO. If they are so thankful for him, they might want to invite him over to the house once a year or so?

[Idlewild]

Damage limitation I’m sure- the revelation about Jill needing permission to visit probably caused a stir. 
It reinforces my view that s any supposed ‘tell all’ will not be an attack on the Duggars but rather on TLC, political correctness and ‘elites’ in the style of Trump junior. 
And my BEC moment- I wish Jill would get over the ‘we speak Spanish’ as I’m pretty sure that beyond a few phrases they don’t. 

[viii]

I would also say 100% for appearances. There have been plenty of birthdays for various family members that they haven't made a post for, so if they had ignored Derrick's birthday, I wouldn't have thought anything of it. Considering that's happening lately between the Dillards and Duggars, I'm hard pressed to believe it's sincere. 

It's 100% damage control. 

[redsmomma29]

I think that account may be run by a social media person who is no too up to date on family dynamics!