Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Darknight]

As for Josh. I hope he gets a real job to support his family. Anna's due in what 4months? I hope they have health insurance just in case something goes wrong. I hope not. It's best for Josh to lay low for now

[kstar821]

  Quote

Anna's due in what 4months?

 

 

I think she's due around the 4th of July!!

[Slugabug Foster]

There's a secret that mentions Josh on postsecret.com this week. I think the person who submitted it summed up the whole situation better than the Duggars ever could.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Slugabug Foster

[GEML]

I'm glad they recognized Michael's birthday. He's the same age as my daughter, and I know no matter what the catastrophe (and we've had some) I've tried to keep my children's lives as normal and far removed from it as possible.

[Chai]

I used to like Anna. Now I just cant understand how she married someone with Josh's history.that would be a deal breaker for me. And how could her parents want her with someone with that history? Theres no kind of line drawn in the proverbial sand that makes you say that's unacceptable to these people?

I can't look at Josh's face. I scroll over it asap.

[Missy Vixen]

  On 6/16/2015 at 2:12 AM, Kokapetl said:

Is it possible the daughters just wanted it to be known that the release of the information harmed the victims as well as the perpetrator, that InTouch magazine releasing the information really only benefitted InTouch magazine?

Here's a thought. If the Duggars had not publicly identified the survivors and put them on national TV, the vast majority of the viewing public would have NO IDEA who those survivors were, even with sloppily-redacted documents. MOST people don't obsessively watch 19KAC, or at least they didn't before this all started. To blame In Touch for printing publicly available documents is something of a joke. Let's put the blame where it belongs -- Jim Boob and J-Chelle Duggar, who failed to protect their daughters (and a fifth young woman) from their eldest son, who molested their daughters at least twenty times, according to the New York Times. They also confirmed at least two of the five survivors. After all, there was a reality TV show (and a $40K a week check) to save.

 

The screams of "persecution" and "re-victimization" is an attempt to deflect the blame from where it should rest, namely with the Duggars' parents and Josh Duggar himself. Imagine how any of us would feel to learn that there was a  sex offender in our neighborhood and there was no attempt to notify those living there. After all, if there was notification, it's "re-victimizing" the victims. No, it's alerting those around him or her that they have a high probability of re-offending.

 

In Touch isn't the villain here.

[kokapetl]

Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services were already aware of what Josh had done, and to who he did it to. CPS appear to have intervened in some way, but we don't know any details because it's not in the welfare of the abused for anyone and everyone to know.

Josh's identity was as much redacted as his sisters, it was no more difficult to conclude the names of the sisters than it was to conclude the perpetrator was Josh. They may have not published their names, but what they published was tantamount to naming them. I don't think InTouch have an agenda besides selling magazines. That interviews with victims of child sexual abuse were published with enough information to identify them will probably not encourage other sexual abuse victims to consent to similar interviews.

My understanding of FOI is that it's supposed to be about scrutinizing the government, not third parties.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Kokapetl

[frenchtoast]

  On 6/16/2015 at 2:35 PM, Missy Vixen said:

Imagine how any of us would feel to learn that there was a  sex offender in our neighborhood and there was no attempt to notify those living there. After all, if there was notification, it's "re-victimizing" the victims. No, it's alerting those around him or her that they have a high probability of re-offending.

 

In Touch isn't the villain here.

The thing is, local residents are not notified. One can find it out, but its not like there is any announcement to a neighborhood.

[dillpickles]

  On 6/16/2015 at 3:27 PM, frenchtoast said:

The thing is, local residents are not notified. One can find it out, but its not like there is any announcement to a neighborhood.

if the sex offender is Registered, sometimes you'll get an alert or something, if you have young children in public school or something.

They used to send us home with letters about people giving drugs to kids, kids getting abducted, or anything like that when i was younger.

Then again, it may depend on where you live.

[Lemur]

  On 6/16/2015 at 3:27 PM, frenchtoast said:

The thing is, local residents are not notified. One can find it out, but its not like there is any announcement to a neighborhood.

 

From my rudimentary cruise through Arkansas juvenile sex offender law, there is no guarantee that Josh would have ended up on a register if he'd been duly reported as a minor. (Dearest Moderating Team, if this is too much speculation of the legal sort, please delete.)  For a minor to be listed on their sex offender registry, the prosecutor has to petition the court to do so.  *If* Josh did whatever was required by the court and did not re-offend, it's highly likely that the prosecutor wouldn't have filed such a motion.  But that's purely speculation by someone who has not gone to law school and whose familiarity with Arkansas juvenile criminal law is based entirely on what I scraped together through a couple of quick searches on WestLaw. 

  On 6/16/2015 at 3:30 PM, dillpickles said:

They used to send us home with letters about people giving drugs to kids, kids getting abducted, or anything like that when i was younger.

 

Totally OT, but my school used to send home letters about new releases by Guns-n-Roses and 2Live Crew.  

  On 6/16/2015 at 3:20 PM, Kokapetl said:

My understanding of FOI is that it's supposed to be about scrutinizing the government, not third parties.

 

Yes and no.  FOIA is simply a tool for the average person to get their hands on government documents that are technically publicly available but are not easy to access.  It's partly for government accountability, but the argument could be made that if Josh Duggar's molestation was the worst kept secret in Washington County why did the state do nothing?  Well, it turns out the state did, but the parents kept it covered up for so long that there was nothing Washington County could do except monitor the family for a while and insist everyone get counseling.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Lemur

[frenchtoast]

  On 6/16/2015 at 4:09 PM, Lemur said:

From my rudimentary cruise through Arkansas juvenile sex offender law, there is no guarantee that Josh would have ended up on a register if he'd been duly reported as a minor. (Dearest Moderating Team, if this is too much speculation of the legal sort, please delete.)  For a minor to be listed on their sex offender registry, the prosecutor has to petition the court to do so.  *If* Josh did whatever was required by the court and did not re-offend, it's highly likely that the prosecutor wouldn't have filed such a motion.  But that's purely speculation by someone who has not gone to law school and whose familiarity with Arkansas juvenile criminal law is based entirely on what I scraped together through a couple of quick searches on WestLaw. 

 

Totally OT, but my school used to send home letters about new releases by Guns-n-Roses and 2Live Crew.  

 

Yes and no.  FOIA is simply a tool for the average person to get their hands on government documents that are technically publicly available but are not easy to access.  It's partly for government accountability, but the argument could be made that if Josh Duggar's molestation was the worst kept secret in Washington County why did the state do nothing?  Well, it turns out the state did, but the parents kept it covered up for so long that there was nothing Washington County could do except monitor the family for a while and insist everyone get counseling.

Regarding the bolded part, and this is for everyone, I think we're hitting the sweet spot of there was some discussion, but we're going to start entering territory where it will be too speculative and legalistic. 

 

In other words, let's chill with the discussion about sex offender registries and other such legal procedures. Especially as it starts to swinging over to his children which we've already said is off the table. 

 

Let's chill with legal speculation. We're trying to find a balance and we appreciate everyone's cooperation and good sense.  Thanks!!

[Sew Sumi]

  On 6/16/2015 at 11:29 AM, Albanyguy said:

While that's certainly true, I don't think it even occurred to the girls that they COULD say "no" to the interview. From birth, they've been trained to unquestioning obedience to their parents and I don't think marriage or legal adulthood has changed that in the slightest. Daddy's word is law.

 

 

First he hides behind his sisters and now he hides behind his kids.

I was going to add that, but I would sound like a broken record. They are ALL hiding behind the kids, babies, and bumps since their return to social media. 

[Loves2Dance]

  On 6/16/2015 at 2:25 PM, GEML said:

I'm glad they recognized Michael's birthday. He's the same age as my daughter, and I know no matter what the catastrophe (and we've had some) I've tried to keep my children's lives as normal and far removed from it as possible.

Celebrating Michael's birthday is definitely a good move; putting it up on social media? just a cry for more attention and reaffirmation that people care about them. 

[Happyfatchick]

Could someone post pics of the cupcake party for Michael or tell me where to find them? I feel left out.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Happyfatchick

[JoanArc]

  On 6/16/2015 at 7:33 PM, Happyfatchick said:

Could someone post pics of the cupcake party for Michael or tell me where to find them? I feel left out.

Josh and Anna's FB page has video of the kids around the cake, at the TTH. No adults in sight, of course.

Edited June 16, 2015 by JoanArc

[Sew Sumi]

 Partay! https://instagram.com/p/3-TRwdGrWH/

 

And yes, not an adult in sight as they continue to hide behind cute kiddie pics to avoid criticism. 

 

Cowards. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by Sew Sumi

[kokapetl]

  On 6/16/2015 at 2:25 PM, GEML said:

I'm glad they recognized Michael's birthday. He's the same age as my daughter, and I know no matter what the catastrophe (and we've had some) I've tried to keep my children's lives as normal and far removed from it as possible.

Jackson's birthday was in late May, would Jimchelle have explained to him or any of the howlers why they were weren't going anywhere? I hope I'm wrong, but I think they've probably just waved him away, and he thinks they just don't like him.

[Sew Sumi]

  On 6/16/2015 at 7:41 PM, Sew Sumi said:

Not sure what I was quoting. Oops!

Yes, they totally ignored Jackson's b-day on social media. I guess Joshie couldn't hold out any longer; he had to be going thru withdrawals (as did Jessa, but that's for her thread).

Edited June 16, 2015 by Sew Sumi

[lookeyloo]

Is that Johanna wearing earrings??

[GreyBunny]

  On 6/16/2015 at 3:20 PM, Kokapetl said:

Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services were already aware of what Josh had done, and to who he did it to. CPS appear to have intervened in some way, but we don't know any details because it's not in the welfare of the abused for anyone and everyone to know.

Josh's identity was as much redacted as his sisters, it was no more difficult to conclude the names of the sisters than it was to conclude the perpetrator was Josh. They may have not published their names, but what they published was tantamount to naming them. I don't think InTouch have an agenda besides selling magazines. That interviews with victims of child sexual abuse were published with enough information to identify them will probably not encourage other sexual abuse victims to consent to similar interviews.

My understanding of FOI is that it's supposed to be about scrutinizing the government, not third parties.

 

If the Duggars didn't want Josh's crimes to become a public interest story they should have never agreed to a television show, much less use their status as "celebrities" to slander and accuse an entire class of innocent people of what their own son was doing.  Better yet, Josh should have kept his grubby hands to himself.  The Duggars can't use the media to their benefit and then cry and whine when it bites them in the butt. 

Josh, Michelle, and Jim Bob are the villains.  In Touch was just doing its job and, as far as I'm concerned, is the real hero here.

 

[kokapetl]

  On 6/16/2015 at 7:53 PM, GreyBunny said:

If the Duggars didn't want Josh's crimes to become a public interest story they should have never agreed to a television show, much less use their status as "celebrities" to slander and accuse an entire class of innocent people of what their own son was doing. Better yet, Josh should have kept his grubby hands to himself. The Duggars can't use the media to their benefit and then cry and whine when it bites them in the butt.

Josh, Michelle, and Jim Bob are the villains. In Touch was just doing its job and, as far as I'm concerned, is the real hero here.

InTouch is a magazine about Jennifer Aniston being pregnant, Angelina Jolie being deathly skinny and some Kardashian being fed up with another Kardashian. They didn't blow any whistles, the people who should know what Josh did already knew what Josh did. They are certainly not heroes for disseminating, in order to sell tabloid magazines, child sexual abuse victim's statements that were given in confidence. No one benefited from this but InTouch. Certainly no Duggar benefitted.

Josh's FRC job and Michelle's robocalls are hypocritical, but they were preaching to the choir. Those who were receptive to their idiocy remain receptive to it.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Kokapetl

[bluebonnet]

So if it were the New York Times, then it could be called proper whistle blowing?  Keep in mine, the NYT and all those other news sources have utterly neglected to report on the danger this family has represented to the public for nearly a decade.  Also keep in mind that all these news sources reported on the Duggars after the story broke.  

Edited June 16, 2015 by bluebonnet

[JoanArc]

  Quote

 

They are certainly not heroes for disseminating child abuse victim's statements that were given in confidence against their will to sell magazines.

Public information is just that. Anyone could've made the request, and it seems to have been public knowledge, an open secret in the area, so it's not like the it's the first time they went through this. FWIW, InTouch professionally handled the investigation. That's more than a lot of other 'serious' publications can say about far more pressing topics. The Duggars also put themselves out there for over 10 years - to sell magazines. turnabout's fair play, and karma's a bitch.

 

The irony that the records would've been sealed if Jim Bob and Michelle had not waited, and gone through the system is lost to them, I'm sure.

Edited June 16, 2015 by JoanArc

[SpottedCoachDog]

There is a picture on the @duggarfam Twitter feed of Boob and Mechelle with the birthday boy.

[JoanArc]

  On 6/16/2015 at 8:25 PM, SpottedCoachDog said:

There is a picture on the @duggarfam Twitter feed of Boob and Mechelle with the birthday boy.

Nice circumcision poster in the background.

 

And no, Jim Bob and Michelle, you are not forgiven. Love, America.

[galax-arena]

Honestly, I do think that InTouch's motives for covering the story are suspect, so I'm not going to fall over myself praising them for having the moral fortitude to unravel the Duggars' mask of deceit, or whatever. But I don't think they're villains here either. It's not like they're pulling a Radar Online (referring to that link someone posted in the media thread). And regardless of InTouch's dubious motives, they did society a favor by yanking away the Duggars' platform, IMO. It sucks that five innocent girls were caught up in this but there were victims on the other side too.

Edited June 16, 2015 by galax-arena

[kokapetl]

  On 6/16/2015 at 8:16 PM, bluebonnet said:

So if it were the New York Times, then it could be called proper whistle blowing? Keep in mine, the NYT and all those other news sources have utterly neglected to report on the danger this family has represented to the public for nearly a decade. Also keep in mind that all these news sources reported on the Duggars after the story broke.

I'm not American, so I may not understand the average American mind, but I never thought the Duggars had any notable political influence, excluding fellow Kool Aid drinkers. Josh and Michelle's smear campaign against homosexuals and transgenders was directed to people who already shared those opinions.

Alerting the failure of the pedo cop to properly report and investigate is whistleblowing. The New York Times would have focused their story on him, and left the victims truly anonymous.

[Churchhoney]

  On 6/16/2015 at 7:41 PM, Sew Sumi said:

 Partay! https://instagram.com/p/3-TRwdGrWH/

 

And yes, not an adult in sight as they continue to hide behind cute kiddie pics to avoid criticism. 

 

Cowards. 

 

Not that we want to see them, of course.

 

It does seem just so cynical to keep putting all these pictures out of the little kids, when before they kind of ignored them. Clearly a ploy to get back into everybody's good graces, and you should certainly never use your kids for that. Of course, I guess the Duggars have never hesitated to use their kids before, so it's stupid to expect them to begin now, when they're desparate to get back on that tv that they clearly told us they don't actually need.

[JoanArc]

  Quote

 

and left the victims truly anonymous.

The police are at fault for that, not InTouch.

[galax-arena]

  Quote

Josh and Michelle's smear campaign against homosexuals and transgenders was directed to people who already shared those opinions.

But that's just it. In the US, it can be a struggle motivating people to go to the polls to vote. Sometimes there is a very dismal turnout. It doesn't matter whether the majority believes something or not if they don't go to the polls to vote. More than once I've felt like a particular bill/ordinance was defeated (or passed) because the majority of the people on the other side were too complacent. "Oh, everyone agrees that this non-discrimination ordinance is a good idea, I don't have to worry about it at all, so I don't have to haul my ass out of bed to vote." The problem is when too many think that way, you let the other side win. Because on the other side, you have people like the Duggars whipping up the ones who think like they do, fearmongering that if they don't vote, the godless reprobates and child molesters will win. So yes, their smear campaign was directed to people who agreed with them. That was the point. It was a "get out the vote" effort, and it worked.

[bluebonnet]

  On 6/16/2015 at 8:31 PM, Kokapetl said:

I'm not American, so I may not understand the average American mind, but I never thought the Duggars had any notable political influence, excluding fellow Kool Aid drinkers. Josh and Michelle's smear campaign against homosexuals and transgenders was directed to people who already shared those opinions.

Alerting the failure of the pedo cop to properly report and investigate is whistleblowing. The New York Times would have focused their story on him, and left the victims truly anonymous.

Everything the Duggars have said about the LGBT community has been explicitly political.  The robocall was to influence a vote, Josh's FRC work is to influence law.  This isn't them having a talk at a weekend bbq with a few of their closest friends.  It's not smear campaigns.  It's taking their bigoted beliefs to the political sphere.  This isn't even to comment on the number of political candidates who make sure to get photo ops with the Duggars (at least they did).  

 

To be clear, a lot of people are very ignorant about LGBT issues, especially when it comes to transgender people.  This isn't a criticism, it's just fact.  I often become really irritated at the number of times I have to explain things about myself and people in my LGBTQIA community, but I'd rather teach this than allow someone like Michelle Duggar tell people that certain people shouldn't be allowed to pee because they are child molesters.  (BTW, going to the bathroom is a huge issue for transgender people, HUGE, imagine if it were made illegal for you to pee)  A lot of people don't even know what transgender means and the first tiem they hear about it could be Michelle identifying them as men who are child predators who get to go prey on girls in the girls bathroom.

 

The victims were left anonymous.  The family chose to identify the victims. That the family is public and so a person who knows a lot about the family could figure out who the victims were is a separate issue.  

Edited June 16, 2015 by bluebonnet

[duggarshow]

  On 6/16/2015 at 8:44 PM, bluebonnet said:

The victims were left anonymous.  The family chose to identify the victims. That the family is public and so a person who knows a lot about the family could figure out who the victims were is a separate issue.  

 

The victims were not left anonymous by any stretch. The year of the report was made public along with the age of the girls at the time of the incident and now. Not at all anonymous.

[dillpickles]

  On 6/16/2015 at 8:53 PM, duggarfan said:

The victims were not left anonymous by any stretch. The year of the report was made public along with the age of the girls at the time of the incident and now. Not at all anonymous.

Anonymous= not identified by name.

The report left them ambiguous, though. Which is the fault of the person who released the report, not in touch.

[bluebonnet]

  On 6/16/2015 at 8:53 PM, duggarfan said:

The victims were not left anonymous by any stretch. The year of the report was made public along with the age of the girls at the time of the incident and now. Not at all anonymous.

Because YOU could identify the victims does not mean that there weren't reasonable steps made to keep the victims anonymous.  The average person who reads the scandal about the Duggars isn't going to spend the time figuring out who was the victim and who wasn't.  All reports make it possible to identify minor victims even when they are properly redacted to protect identity.  

[Tunia]

  Quote

Nice circumcision poster in the background.

 

 

I'm not seeing this poster, JoanArc.  They have a hand printed sign behind them about "Character"...is that the one you're referring to?

[JoanArc]

  On 6/16/2015 at 9:12 PM, Tunia said:

I'm not seeing this poster, JoanArc.  They have a hand printed sign behind them about "Character"...is that the one you're referring to?

Yes. But, I didn't look too closely at it. I was wrong. Thanks for the catch!

 

I thought they were going for a Roman's 2:29 character lesson, but they weren't. I had to zoom in to read the poster 'Circumstances don't dictate your character, they revel it!' is what the poster really says. Odd, seeing as how circumstances reveled that Jim Bob and Michelle's character didn't including doing all that much for abuse victims around Michael's age. Circumstances also revealed what obligate liars Jim Bob and Michelle are.

Edited June 16, 2015 by JoanArc

[GEML]

I guess I don't think Josh and Anna have ever ignored their children. Yes, they are not photographing themselves on social media, but I wouldn't either. I still might post a picture of my child's birthday, if I had people in my feed who would be interested. That doesn't strike me as cowardly or hypocritical, since they have always done it.

[kokapetl]

I don't think we're going to convert each other in this argument. I just want people to consider that parents don't want their children molested, and they also don't want their children to go to jail. Harsher and harsher punishments may satisfy people reading about cases in the news, but it can be a disincentive to people admitting any abuse occurred, and I think that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abusers.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Kokapetl

[bluebonnet]

  On 6/16/2015 at 9:24 PM, Kokapetl said:

I don't think we're going to convert each other in this argument. I just want people to consider that parents don't want their children molested, and they also don't want their children to go to jail. Harsher and harsher punishments can be a disincentive to people admitting any abuse occurred, and I think that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abusers.

I definitely agree with this, and I think most others would, too.  I can't imagine that anyone would claim that Michelle and Jim Bob wanted their daughters to be molested.  I think a lot of people would have accepted it if M & JB  said that they recognized they made mistakes.  But this isn't at all what happened.  They have claimed that Josh really did nothing very wrong and made excuses for why it wasn't all that bad, put their family on tv mere months after this abuse occurred, and also entered the political foray by classifying LGBT people as all child predators.   

[Vaysh]

  Quote

I don't tnink we're going to convert each other in this argument. I just want people to consider that parents don't want their children molested, and they also don't want their children to go to jail. Harsher and harsher punishments can be a disincentive to people admitting any abuse occurred, and I think that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abusers.

 

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing that a fourteen year old Josh should've been sent to prison or that his punishment should've been harsher necessarily. He should have been immediately removed from the home of his victims, been evaluated by trained professionals and then recieved actual real therapy, as should the girls. I absolutely agree that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abuser, but I also believe that the treatment of the abuser is extremely important as well, because obviously there is something very wrong with their behaviour and mindset that needs to be adressed and treated in order for them to hopefully change and not end up abusing more people. What the Duggars did wrong wasn't that they didn't punish Josh but that they at first didn't do enough to stop his behaviour and then didn't provide proper therapy for him or their daughters.

[kokapetl]

  On 6/16/2015 at 8:39 PM, galax-arena said:

But that's just it. In the US, it can be a struggle motivating people to go to the polls to vote. Sometimes there is a very dismal turnout. It doesn't matter whether the majority believes something or not if they don't go to the polls to vote. More than once I've felt like a particular bill/ordinance was defeated (or passed) because the majority of the people on the other side were too complacent. "Oh, everyone agrees that this non-discrimination ordinance is a good idea, I don't have to worry about it at all, so I don't have to haul my ass out of bed to vote." The problem is when too many think that way, you let the other side win. Because on the other side, you have people like the Duggars whipping up the ones who think like they do, fearmongering that if they don't vote, the godless reprobates and child molesters will win. So yes, their smear campaign was directed to people who agreed with them. That was the point. It was a "get out the vote" effort, and it worked.

I admit I didn't consider this. Where I live, for state and federal elections i'm legally obliged to show up to a polling place, have my attendance recorded and take ballots, and place them in the ballot box before leaving the polling place.

For the last state election I may have actually acted unlawfully. I was out of the country, but I was in DC, so I might have been able to vote at the embassy. I was a little disappointed no one followed that up, voting is the most patriotic thing a citizen can do, and I should have been fined.

[Julia]

  On 6/16/2015 at 9:44 PM, Vaysh said:

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing that a fourteen year old Josh should've been sent to prison or that his punishment should've been harsher necessarily. 

 

I'm actually of the opinion that if Jim Bob wasn't willing to let his son be tried as an adult offender he shouldn't have voted for other peoples' children to be tried as adult offenders. He never backed off that opinion after he chose to protect his son at the expense of his daughters so Josh wouldn't be exposed to - what was it Michelle charmingly called them?  "those people"? - who had the questionable taste to do what Josh did while being poor or not white or without political influence. I believe Josh , who knows he dodged that bullet a whole bunch of times, supports roughly the same platform as his father, as does the organization he lobbied for.

 

Under the circumstances, while I agree that exposing a teenager to the current system is only going to do them damage and put the people they meet later in life at further risk, if people will insist on making that the law of the land, I vote their child molesting kids first. Maybe if privileged children faced the same consequences the laws wouldn't be quite so destructive.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Julia

[galax-arena]

  Quote

Where I live, for state and federal elections i'm legally obliged to show up to a polling place, have my attendance recorded and take ballots, and place them in the ballot box before leaving the polling place.

I was wondering if something like that was the case! But yeah, we Americans are lazy, especially when it comes to voting on the state/local level. I did a quick google search, and one article informed me that there was a 21% turnout in 2013 Los Angeles' mayoral race. From the same article:

 

  Quote

But research coming out in a forthcoming issue of the journal Political Research Quarterly found that across 340 mayoral elections in 144 large American cities dating back to 1996, turnout averaged only 25.8 percent.

From another article (on federal/national election turnouts):

 

  Quote

In countries with compulsory voting, like Australia, Belgium, and Chile, voter turnout hovered near 90% in the 2000s. Other countries, like Austria, Sweden, and Italy, experienced turnout rates near 80%. Overall, OECD countries experience turnout rates of about 70%, while in the U.S., about 60% of the voting eligible population votes during presidential election years, and about 40% votes during midterm elections.

So, yeah, we kinda suck. I'm including myself in that assessment; when I was younger, I used to be very ~omg what's the point of voting, all politicians are corrupt, we're screwed either way~ until I realized how stupid that was. 

 

To tie this back in with the Duggars, I don't know if the true majority of the Fayetteville residents were in favor of the anti-discrimination ordinance or not. Perhaps it would have been repealed either way. But I do think that some bigots who might not have cared enough to vote either way were galvanized by the robocall and fearmongering. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by galax-arena

[Churchhoney]

  On 6/16/2015 at 9:44 PM, Vaysh said:

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing that a fourteen year old Josh should've been sent to prison or that his punishment should've been harsher necessarily. He should have been immediately removed from the home of his victims, been evaluated by trained professionals and then recieved actual real therapy, as should the girls. I absolutely agree that the treatment of the abused is more important than the punishment of the abuser, but I also believe that the treatment of the abuser is extremely important as well, because obviously there is something very wrong with their behaviour and mindset that needs to be adressed and treated in order for them to hopefully change and not end up abusing more people. What the Duggars did wrong wasn't that they didn't punish Josh but that they at first didn't do enough to stop his behaviour and then didn't provide proper therapy for him or their daughters.

 

I'm quoting this because I think it deserves to be said and read over and over.

  On 6/16/2015 at 9:50 PM, Kokapetl said:

I admit I didn't consider this. Where I live, for state and federal elections i'm legally obliged to show up to a polling place, have my attendance recorded and take ballots, and place them in the ballot box before leaving the polling place.

For the last state election I may have actually acted unlawfully. I was out of the country, but I was in DC, so I might have been able to vote at the embassy. I was a little disappointed no one followed that up, voting is the most patriotic thing a citizen can do, and I should have been fined.

 

Whereas in the U.S., people not only have to be urged and begged and cajoled and pushed to vote, some people spend a huge amount of energy trying to keep the people who might vote against them away from the polls, such as by squelching attempts to expand voting hours and so on so working people have an easier time fitting voting into their day. How many vote is really the issue here, and it creates our laws and creates our Congress and our state governments.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Churchhoney

[Sew Sumi]

  On 6/16/2015 at 7:46 PM, lookeyloo said:

Is that Johanna wearing earrings??

That's Mackynzie. She's had pierced ears since she was about six months old. 

[lookeyloo]

I mean the girl on the right of the scene on the left of Michael who pulls the 4 candle off the cake.

[MrsMommy]

  On 6/16/2015 at 9:29 PM, bluebonnet said:

I definitely agree with this, and I think most others would, too. I can't imagine that anyone would claim that Michelle and Jim Bob wanted their daughters to be molested. I think a lot of people would have accepted it if M & JB said that they recognized they made mistakes. But this isn't at all what happened. They have claimed that Josh really did nothing very wrong and made excuses for why it wasn't all that bad, put their family on tv mere months after this abuse occurred, and also entered the political foray by classifying LGBT people as all child predators.

It sounded to me like they knew they made mistakes, thinking your a bad parent is one sign of knowing you made a mistake, they knew what josh did was wrong and they got him help, no it may not meet some people's standards but it met cps standards and he seems "cured" to me. I hate to use the word cured but couldn't think of a better word

[kokapetl]

  On 6/16/2015 at 10:41 PM, Churchhoney said:

some people spend a huge amount of energy trying to keep the people who might vote against them away from the polls, such as by squelching attempts to expand voting hours and so on so working people have an easier time fitting voting into their day. How many vote is really the issue here, and it creates our laws and creates our Congress and our state governments.

That's the pretty much why it became compulsory in Australia. Irish Catholic = working class = union members = Labor voters. If everyone was legally compelled to vote, it became extremely difficult to coerce the underclass (or any class) not to vote. Edited June 16, 2015 by Kokapetl

[Sew Sumi]

  On 6/16/2015 at 9:21 PM, JoanArc said:

Yes. But, I didn't look too closely at it. I was wrong. Thanks for the catch!

 

I thought they were going for a Roman's 2:29 character lesson, but they weren't. I had to zoom in to read the poster 'Circumstances don't dictate your character, they revel it!' is what the poster really says. Odd, seeing as how circumstances reveled that Jim Bob and Michelle's character didn't including doing all that much for abuse victims around Michael's age. Circumstances also revealed what obligate liars Jim Bob and Michelle are.

An irony totally lost on JB and Mechelle. Par for the course, really. Irony is often found at the feet of fundies, but in an ironic twist of fate, they always fail to recognize it. 

[Oldernowiser]

  On 6/16/2015 at 10:46 PM, MrsMommy said:

It sounded to me like they knew they made mistakes, thinking your a bad parent is one sign of knowing you made a mistake, they knew what josh did was wrong and they got him help, no it may not meet some people's standards but it met cps standards and he seems "cured" to me. I hate to use the word cured but couldn't think of a better word

Based on...his public persona? How cute his kids are?

If we've learned anything about this family, it's not to trust their facade.