GOP=RIP how do you ever hope to win with an attitude like this?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (76 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image82
    Credence2posted 14 months ago

    A little background

    https://news.yahoo.com/gop-warns-hr-1-c … 43930.html

    I find this more than a bit irritating about Republicans and conservatives generally.

    If you can't win the hearts and minds of the electorate with your ideas and policies, then your usefulness has come to an end.

    "In Arizona, another battleground seeing an onslaught of election-related legislative battles, state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican, told CNN, "Democrats value as many people as possible voting, and they're willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don't mind putting security measures in that won't let everybody vote -- but everybody shouldn't be voting."

    This fraud thing is just a bunch of hooey, without any real substantive proof. But get the last portion of the Kavanagh tirade, (Everybody shouldn't be voting). Just who does this guy think that he is? So, he thinks that he and people like him should be able to cull the electorate. And who decides whose rights are to be compromised?

    I say we ram HR-1 up the GOP pachyderm's bum and don't spare the KY. It is an essential piece of legislation right up there with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and we are going to see it through.

    GOP: are you that fearful of the process?

    I will write your obituary in advance if that is the case. Learn from Dick Dasterdly of the "Wacky Races", cheaters never prosper.

    These antics from the Republicans are those of a party that is in decline.

    1. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      That quote from Schumer was something I reposted to a liberal page I vent to:

      "If one political party believes 'heads we win, tails you cheated,' if one political party believes that when you lose an election, the answer isn't to win more votes, but rather to try to prevent the other side from voting, then we have serious and existential threats to our democracy on our hands," Schumer said Wednesday. "That's why we need S.1. so badly."

      Kill the filibuster and protect the rights of citizens.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

        https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … voters-li/

        Well, Valeant, the GOP says it is all about fraud. What can that possibly have anything to do with making it a misdemeanor to provide food and drink for those waiting in line to vote?

        The oligarchs that are the Republican Party no longer have any tricks left in the bag and I believe that the Right in its desperation will attack in a big way in response to changing realities.

        The Republicans have prove themselves beyond reason and the Democrats must act boldly if anything is to get accomplished.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          " What can that possibly have anything to do with making it a misdemeanor to provide food and drink for those waiting in line to vote?"

          Can you possibly be serious with this question?  We've seen times in the past with very personal, very insistent "help" on who to vote for and you want to give free, intimate, access to voters to anyone carrying a soft drink cup?

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Cmon, Wilderness, we know that is bull****.

            People, particularely in minority communities, are in lines for hours waiting  to vote. Do you really think that their planned voting preferences are going to be changed because someone offers them a refreshment while standing in line for hours at a time?

    2. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I must have the worst attitude of them all. I don't take stake or stock in politics. Just enjoy the freakshow. Hard to share alternative thinking in these cultures and biological warfare.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Castle, be glad that you are not living in America at this time and place, take a ringside seat and enjoy the show....

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Thank you

          I take the front row seat.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Before you say "this fraud thing is hooey" you need to read the bill.
      It is one scary piece of work. And it appears not much of the truth is being reported by the media in regard to what's in HR-1. 

      This bill would allow fraud at a level one could only imagine. It offers an invitation to commit fraud.

      I do trust as the time comes closer to vote on the Bill more will be exposed of what's in it. 

      It is up to us to read this bill or forever hold our peace. I will be completely devastated if the Republicans don't fight tooth and nail to defeat this destructive piece of legislation. It completely supports and offers methods of committing voter fraud.

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con … ill/1/text

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Could you point out the sections that would "allow fraud" or "offer an invitation to fraud? Since you have read it.

        Also, could you be specific about how "It completely supports and offers methods of committing voter fraud"?

      2. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Is it perfect? probably not. The Republicans will have an opportunity to debate their grievances. But with over 250 separate legislative actions on the state level restricting voting, including criminalizing offering a Big Gulp to those that may well wait hours to access the polls, that is unacceptable as it stands.

        So, let's cut to the chase, shall we?

        There have been many in the Republican Party that implicitly and one or two explicitely who say that more voters puts them and their candidates at a disadvantage, they did not qualify the voters, just too many. Why is that?

        I am always going to err on the side of greater participation in the democratic process rather than less.

        Again, I ask the question, what are you all afraid of?

        So, when it comes to the universal right of American citizens over the age of 18 to vote regardless of the state where one may reside, one size does fit all.

        1. Valeant profile image88
          Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          And while the right is at it, please provide the statistics for all the mail-in ballots that were cast by non-citizens or forged.  We'll take either stat to back up your claims of an increase in fraud by allowing this type of voting.

          By the logic of the right, restricting voting because someone COULD commit fraud - not that very many ever do - is appropriate. 

          There are way more instances of gun violence in this country than voter fraud - I guess that if someone COULD commit an act of violence with a gun, further restrictions are more than justifiable then, under the view of the right.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Did you read the bill?  I realize it is lengthy and tedious. But I would hope some would read it before supporting it.  As I said I would think the media will start pointing out the drawbacks of the bill. Perhaps if you don't want to read the entire bill, wait to have some of it presented by Journalists and media. It would seem many are just supporting this bill without being aware of what's in it.

            You may not like what you ultimately discover what's in the bill.

            1. Valeant profile image88
              Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              So that's a no on providing any factual evidence to back up fraud claims.  Got it.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I will be more than ready to debate the subject if the bill is reported on. It will be very interesting to learn how the Democrats will promote the bill, and if the Rep will debate the bill in regards to its propensity to promote voter fraud. They may not... They are no better than the Democrats.  I pretty much agree with Cred the bill will be rammed through.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image83
          Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          What changed? Americans have been voting for decades without a problem.

          We go to the polls, those that can't apply to vote as absentee voters. Anyone can apply, yes they need to take the effort to file out a form, prove their identity, and wait for their ballot in each election.

          It would seem a very simple process. I don't think the Republicans are fearful of how many vote, just that person's that vote are legally allowed to vote.

          This bill leaves gaps in identifying voters as legal citizens. I find this unacceptable, this bill if passed will lead to fraud. It is shocking to see a bill like this even brought before Congress.

          Read the bill.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I would like to read the parts that you say will "allow fraud at a level one could only imagine. It offers an invitation to commit fraud."

            Since you made such a scary, emphatic assertuon, it would be great it you would share with us exactly which parts of the bill you think would endanger our democracy in such a horrible way. It would also back up your claims. So far, you have presented zero backup for such a sweeping claim.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image83
              Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              This is a comment that elicited my responce. "I say we ram HR-1 up the GOP pachyderm's bum and don't spare the KY. It is an essential piece of legislation right up there with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and we are going to see it through."

              I will be glad to have a conversation with anyone that read the bill. Otherwise, it's a waste of time in my view. I  was pointing out it is not a bill that should be rammed through. Our voting system is too important to not be protected.   

              I also find it a waste of time arguing a given subject with anyone that is not equipped to argue facts that are presented in the bill.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I am not going to read the whole bill. How long did it take you to read the whole bill?

                However, I would be glad to look at the specific sections that you say are so scary.

                I find it odd that you say you "find it a waste of time arguing a given subject with anyone that is not equipped to argue facts that are presented in the bill" but you have yet to actually present any facts that are in the bill.

                Why tell us how scary it is then refuse to share exactly why? Very strange.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                  Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  And I don't intend to. I provide my reasoning.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    One can provide "reasoning" on anything but unless there is some factual information or data to back it up, it's meaningless.

                    So, as of now, your assertion that the bill invites fraud is totally meaningless, especially since you read the bill but refuse to point to a single section to back up your claims.

                    S for "scary," I'm sure it is scary to Republicans who want fewer people to vote because they know their ideas are not as popular.

                    So, I'll concede that it's scary--to those who want to continue their craven efforts to suppress the vote.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 14 months ago

    Personally, I don't care who you get to vote...as long as they are an American, it is legal for them to vote, and they prove who they are.

    The voting process itself: I very much favor the system used where I live.  I present an ID and am given a ballot.  I fill it out and insert it into the machine myself.  Those that cannot vote in person are afforded an opportunity to do so by mail, but there is no mass mailing of ballots to any and every name on the voting rolls, which we all know contain many, many errors.

    *edit* I did get a giggle out of your authoritative link though; by a movie star and a political commentator from the left.  Certainly we should all take every thing those two have to say, painting the GOP negatively, as gospel!

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Maybe you would enjoy the movie by South Park  called.
      Team America

    2. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I got a giggle out of you thinking one of those two political correspondents was a movie star just because someone has the same name.

    3. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Wilderness, I would not have call my link authoritative more than providing background. And what Valeant to you does have a point....

      It is good that you don't seek to put a straight jacket on those that participate in the franchise, but it obvious that the people you support want to do that and much more.

      You can shoot the messenger, but the message is disseminated everywhere from any credible source. The Republicans simply must restrict access to the ballot to, as they say, have a chance at winning elections. The real explanation is not about fraud. Why would any competitor indicate that their platform has so little appeal that large swaths of the electorate has to be excluded so that they may win?

  3. Valeant profile image88
    Valeantposted 14 months ago

    From Wiki:

    The bill would require states to offer same-day voter registration for federal elections[3][2] and to permit voters to make changes to their registration at the polls.[3] It would require states to hold early voting for at least two weeks and would establish automatic voter registration[15][3][2] for individuals to be eligible to vote in elections for federal office in the state.[16] Under the automatic voter registration provision, eligible citizens who provide information to state agencies (including state departments of motor vehicles or public universities) would be automatically registered to vote unless they opt out of doing so.[15] The bill would also expand opportunities to vote by mail and would make Election Day a federal holiday.[15] The bill would require states to offer online voter registration,[3][15] which has already been adopted in 39 states and the District of Columbia;[15] under the bill, states would be required to establish a system to allow applications to be electronically completed, submitted, and received by election officials, and to allow registered voters to electronically update their voter registration information.[15] The bill would establish criminal penalties for persons who "corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote" and for voter deception or intimidation (the bill would specifically "prohibit knowing and intentional communication of false and misleading information – including about the time, place, or manner of elections, public endorsements, and the rules governing voter eligibility and voter registration – made with the intent of preventing eligible voters from casting ballots").[15] The bill would instruct the Election Assistance Commission to adopt recommendations for states on the prevention of interference with voter registration.[15]

    The bill would also authorize 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote in advance of their becoming 18.[15][17] A 2019 proposal by Representative Ayanna Pressley to amend the bill to actually allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote did not succeed.[2] The bill would also prohibit the practice of voter caging[15] and restrict the practicing of voter-roll purges[9] by limiting states' ability to remove registered voters from the rolls[4] and setting conditions for when they could do so.[3] Specifically, the bill would require states to obtain certain information before removing voters from the rolls, and would prohibit voter purges from taking place less than six months before an election.[15] The bill prohibits any person from communicating "materially false" claims meant to prevent others from voting 60 days before an election[18] and compels the attorney general to correct such misinformation.[19] The bill also requires elections officials to timely notify any voter tagged for removal from the rolls and give them an opportunity to contest the removal or seek reinstatement of their registration.[15] It also restores voting rights to felons who complete prison terms.[2][20]

    The bill contains various provisions to promote voting access for people with disabilities and provisions to strengthen the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) by providing additional protections for military and overseas voters.[15] To ensure UOCAVA compliance, the bill would require "require all states ... to send uniformed service and overseas voters' ballots at least 45 days before a federal election (provided a request was received at least 45 days before the election); require states to use and pay for express delivery and return of ballots if they fail to send ballots to uniformed and overseas voters by that deadline; [and] extend the guarantee of state residency for voting purposes to all spouses and dependents of absent servicemembers (current law extends the guarantee of residency only to servicemembers themselves)."[15] The bill would create a cause of action allowing the attorney general or a private party to sue if a state violates these provisions, and would require states to sent reports to Congress documenting "the availability of absentee balloting for servicemembers and overseas voters, how many ballots were transmitted, and how many were returned."[15]

    There, now tell us - what in there would lead to fraud?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Automatic voter registration of anyone dealing with a state agency, regardless of citizenship status, age, incarceration status, or anything else.  California already does this with the result that millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote. 

      Inability to remove names from a voter registration list as needed.

      1. Valeant profile image88
        Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Since Oregon became the first state to pass automatic voter registration in 2015, 17 other states and the District of Columbia have followed with their own version of the policy, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

        Millions?  Please provide any evidence for that.  And then some actual evidence that even if they were registered, that they actually did break the law and vote. 

        https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … not-vote-/

      2. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        You might want to start fact checking the scary info you get from you right-wing sources to avoid sounding like colorfulone.

        Ah, the memories....big_smile

        1. Sharlee01 profile image83
          Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Or perhaps check Val's info from a very much left-leaning site.

          "In a more extensive American follow-up to the 2012 study, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia (2018), Greenstein and Zhu directly compare about 4,000 articles related to U.S. politics between Wikipedia (written by an online community) and the matching articles from Encyclopædia Britannica (written by experts) using similar methods as their 2010 study to measure "slant" (Democratic vs. Republican) and to quantify the degree of "bias". The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased", particularly those focusing on civil rights, corporations, and government."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologic … d%20toward

          Plus ---Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I don't see how this comment is related to anything I have said or to this discussion.

            But, it does appear you are capable of looking up information and linking to it.
            How odd that you refuse to do so to back up your own claims about the voter rights bill. Since you have read it, it would be rather easy, wouldn't it?

            1. Valeant profile image88
              Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Attack the source when you cannot counter the information contained within.  She avoided listing any single part of the post that was actually incorrect, but instead wasted everyone's time dodging the request.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Yep.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Was not attacking, was pointing out a fact about WIKI. Anyone can enter and edit. I use WIKI carefully due to their policy. To reiterate, I am not willing to debate the bill in-depth due to my belief that as of yet media have not been reporting on it. I assume most have not read the lengthy tedious bill. I would prefer to wait to discuss it when more are truly aware of what's in the bill that will affect us all. Some American's will find the bill pleasing, some will see it as a step deeper into Government taking away State rights, and so much more.

                I think the bill will deserve a thread. It's clear at this point, it would be fair to wait until the Senate starts considering the bill.  I have no other motive but to save my energy for a time when many more have had the chance to mull over the bill. 

                The reason I made mention of it at all --- I thought Cred's statement in regard to ramming it through was premature.

                This all being just my view.

          2. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            So, Shar, are the only acceptable sources for you Right Wing media? You folks speak of a general bias against the Rightwinger found in mainstream media. Perhaps, they are saying things that you all just as soon not want to hear?

            Nice to see an example of that bias you claim is in Wikipedia, while The same article in Britannica is free from it.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image83
              Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              To give context to why I posted the link that makes claims WIKI is a left-leaning site.  I responded to a comment left by PP

              "PRETTYPANTHER WROTE:
              You might want to start fact checking the scary info you get from you right-wing sources to avoid sounding like colorfulone.

              Ah, the memories..."

              Just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy.  You see I can pretty much have the same opinion on a given source another user here finds non-bias. I gave a source to prove my point. WIKI is a poor source. I could literally enter and edit the article that Val used as a source. This is one reason I won't discuss the HR1 bill with someone that has not read some of the bills.

              So it's not that I don't want to hear another opinion due to them using a given source. I took it as hypocrisy that PP pointed out  ---  It goes both ways.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                My comment was in response to wilderness' claim that "millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote in California." A very specific statement that I suggested should be fact checked.

                Do you believe it, too?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                  Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  No problem with the subject of your comment. The problem was you assuming Wilderness obtained his info from a right-wing source. To be factual --- He offered no source.  How would you have known where he came about his opinion?   Your comment made no real sense to me.

                  "PRETTYPANTHER WROTE:
                  You might want to start fact checking the scary info you get from you right-wing sources to avoid sounding like colorfulone.

                  you assumed  --- Are you a mind reader?

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    False claims about illegal aliens and illegal voting originate from and are spread by right-wing media. Well, sometimes they originate from the mouth of a liar but they are then spread by right-wing media.

                    Perhaps if wilderness returns to the discussion he will share his source for his claim that "millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote in Califorbia." Whatever the source, that claim has been debunked by fact checkers.

          3. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I would ask why would you assume that the "volunteers" have a leftist bias. Do not conservatives have the option to write and contribute to articles?

      3. Sharlee01 profile image83
        Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Valeant profile image88
          Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          'Regardless of citizenship status' is a fabrication.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Up to an illegal if they opt-out when they apply for a license. Certainly leaves an option to commit fraud. That is a huge loophole.

            1. Valeant profile image88
              Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Actually, they need to opt-in when first applying.  When doing a renewal, they need to opt-out.

              And they do not get the option to commit fraud, they get the option to be illegally registered.  They would then have to actually vote, and risk the penalties for doing so.

            2. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              It is not rocket science to require different documentation for getting a driver's license as a non resident vs being a resident. The license for the nonresident is tagged in such a way that does not permit he or she any option for automatic registration come election time.

      4. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

        More BS, Wilderness, "millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote"?

        Voter registration lists may be culled only under certain conditions, not in an arbitrary fashion the way the GOP does things to basically keep people who don't vote for them from voting.

    2. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Valeant,  I think that pretty much addresses the content of the bill in a nutshell.

  4. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 14 months ago

    In Oregon, it has long been the policy that local police did not handle immigratuon violations. A person here illegally could report child abuse or assault, for example without fear that police would check their immigration status. You don't want victims of violent crimes worrying that they will be themselves incarcerated if they need to call the police This is not a new policy and only became an issue when the Trump administration tried to force local law enforcement to act like immigration police. There are many good reasons the two functions remain separate.

    Of course, I know this won't matter to the rabid anti-immigration people. Many of them would rather put a child or other victim at higher risk than allow immigration enforcement to do their jobs and local police to do theirs.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      First, it was always policy to aid federal law enforcement, with nothing but a heads up at times.  Now that is illegal; local cops, knowing the whereabouts of a person violating federal law, may not inform federal enforcement.

      Trump never tried to force local cops to "act like immigration police" and deport people.  He DID ask for the minor aid of information and keeping a criminal behind bars a couple of days until they could be picked up.  And Oregon refused in both cases, preferring to protect illegal aliens from federal law enforcement. 

      Perhaps the best way to end that child abuse is to deport the parent, and child, back home.  Seems simple, right?  Obey the law, go home and the child won't be abused any more.  Or do you expect American law enforcement to prevent crimes all over the globe, too?

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Your response is as expected.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          It should be; I fully expect law enforcement to enforce the laws.  Not ignore them and certainly not to aid criminals in avoiding the law.  We are a country of laws; ignore the ones we don't like and the result is anarchy.  Unfortunately some states have decided they are above the law...along with some at the federal level as well.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Maybe I should have said your response, as expected, contained misinformation,twisted to fit your nattive, as expected.

            I'm just not in the mood to argue with your typical mangling of reality

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)