Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;936063]I think the game just changed. Mittens got exposed for going after cheap child labor. Such a shiny beacon that our country should look towards! [/quote]Where in that video did Romney say he was going after child labor? He was contrasting life in China with life in the US. How stupid can your spin get here?

Romney said we had it made here, compared to situations like the one he talked about in China. Show where Romney said he approved of it, instead of being surprised by it.

And you didn't even get minor details right. 18 to 23 is child labor?

This is why I ignore this thread normally. All the republican bashing going on now, it appears to be lies and exaggeration at best. Like the description of this video. Again, fear and division is all Democrats have left at this point, like the guy I wish was at the top of the Republican ticket said. But I guess you guys didn't watch that speech, just tried to find someone else to poke holes in it for you.

"The game just changed", is kinda funny. If this video isn't being described accurately, what does this mean about all the other mud thrown around in this thread? I'd say "the game" against the republicans has just been exposed as lies and hyperbole at best.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

uh oh.....check out the difference in % between now and Nov. 2008.

[url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation]Summary of Party Affiliation - Rasmussen Reports™[/url]

I may already have the liquor paid for at my post-election party...huh saden?

[url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll]Daily Swing State Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™[/url]

Lets take a look at those numbers after the DNC, or few weeks after that.

There is always a slight bump after each respective NC, that soon goes away.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

I wonder how many times you would hear the word "cult" from the right if the Democratic nominee was the Mormon and the gop candidate was a protestant/catholic. A friend and I spoke how this has barely been mentioned, think it shows the ethics of each sides' campaign approach. Funny to think about how the right tried to call Obama a Muslim just last election.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

It's hard to make the case that we're not better off with these types of arguments:

[yt]kMj8KkO23xU[/yt]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Romney received practically no bump from the convention. But Obama sucks.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;936711]It's hard to make the case that we're not better off with these types of arguments:

[yt]kMj8KkO23xU[/yt][/quote]

Wow, an honest person running for the WH. Obama is like the past Redskin mgrs. Yes he started with a bad situation but he has done very little to make it any better.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;936711]It's hard to make the case that we're not better off with these types of arguments:

[yt]kMj8KkO23xU[/yt][/quote]LOL, this is probably example #3,392 why you should never take Al Sharpton's word on anything.

The full quote ([URL="http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Why-Newt/%28page%29/2"]LINK[/URL]):

INGRAHAM: Isn't that a hard argument to make if you're saying -- Okay, he inherited this recession, and he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now we're seeing some more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn't that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: [B][U]Have you got a better one, Laura? [laughter] It just happens to be the truth.... at some point it's going to get better, but I don't think President Obama's helping it.[/U][/B]

(Bold and underline mine)

So no, it's not a tough argument for Romney to make. Not if you think about what the economy has done the past four years. We were in a deep recession. Now we're in a relatively growthless, jobless recovery. That economy is better off than it was four years ago, but considering where we were four years ago, that doesn't mean the economy is doing well now. Google terms like "economic cycle" and do some research.

Here's what Romney's argument actually is: ([URL="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/mitt_romneys_new_problem_a_ris034764.php"]LINK[/URL]):

[U][B]In his remarks [Friday], Romney also acknowledged the economy was getting better — something he has said before….

“And [President Obama]’s going to say the economy is getting better,” Romney said. “Thank heavens it’s getting better. It’s getting better not because of him, it’s in spite of him and what he’s done.” [/B][/U]

If one is going to talk about someone's argument, saden, shouldn't one at least talk about the actual argument instead of cherrypicking soundbites? Or do you think Al Sharpton on MSNBC can be counted on to report things fairly?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=HailGreen28;936771]LOL, this is probably example #3,392 why you should never take Al Sharpton's word on anything.

The full quote ([URL="http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Why-Newt/%28page%29/2"]LINK[/URL]):

INGRAHAM: Isn't that a hard argument to make if you're saying -- Okay, he inherited this recession, and he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now we're seeing some more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn't that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: [B][U]Have you got a better one, Laura? [laughter] It just happens to be the truth.... at some point it's going to get better, but I don't think President Obama's helping it.[/U][/B]

(Bold and underline mine)

So no, it's not a tough argument for Romney to make. Not if you think about what the economy has done the past four years. We were in a deep recession. Now we're in a relatively growthless, jobless recovery. That economy is better off than it was four years ago, but considering where we were four years ago, that doesn't mean the economy is doing well now. Google terms like "economic cycle" and do some research.

Here's what Romney's argument actually is: ([URL="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/mitt_romneys_new_problem_a_ris034764.php"]LINK[/URL]):

[U][B]In his remarks [Friday], Romney also acknowledged the economy was getting better — something he has said before….[/B][/U]

[U][B]“And [President Obama]’s going to say the economy is getting better,” Romney said. “Thank heavens it’s getting better. It’s getting better not because of him, it’s in spite of him and what he’s done.” [/B][/U]

If one is going to talk about someone's argument, saden, shouldn't one at least talk about the actual argument instead of cherrypicking soundbites? Or do you think Al Sharpton on MSNBC can be counted on to report things fairly?[/quote]


......as fairly as Fox and there band of mud slingers.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;936748]Wow, an honest person running for the WH. Obama is like the past Redskin mgrs. Yes he started with a bad situation but he has done very little to make it any better.[/quote]

Things would be a hell of alot better had the republican congress stop being petty and thought about the people of the United States and pass a bill or 2 but that would mean that the President was doing his job....and God forbid republicans can't have that!

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Giantone;936775]......as fairly as Fox and there band of mud slingers.[/quote]So you admit equivalence. Wonderful. :doh:

This is why politics sucks, all round.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=HailGreen28;936782]So you admit equivalence. Wonderful. :doh:

This is why politics sucks, all round.[/quote]

I agree politics suck but it's the politicians that need to stand up and tell the media to start with the truth and start thinking about this country and not one party or the other.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Giantone;936850]I agree politics suck but it's the politicians that need to stand up and tell the media to start with the truth and start thinking about this country and not one party or the other.[/quote]Good luck with either side on that. We keep electing the ones with the best negative ads.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=HailGreen28;937040]Good luck with either side on that. We keep electing the ones with the best negative ads.[/quote]

hell, I'm a dreamer!
:)

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Despite limited spending in PA, it appears in play for the GOP:

[url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/16/poll-close-contest-in-pennsylvania/]Poll: Close contest in Pennsylvania – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs[/url]

from July.
[url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2012_pennsylvania_president]Election 2012: Pennsylvania President - Rasmussen Reports™[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;937120]Despite limited spending in PA, it appears in play for the GOP:

[url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/16/poll-close-contest-in-pennsylvania/]Poll: Close contest in Pennsylvania – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs[/url]

from July.
[url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2012_pennsylvania_president]Election 2012: Pennsylvania President - Rasmussen Reports™[/url][/quote]


If Romney wins in PA or Ohio, it will because the GOP has restricted poor/minorities from voting with Voter ID laws.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/us/politics/pennsylvania-judge-keeps-voter-id-law-intact.html[/url]


I find it odd a PA judge decides to keep the decision, but judges in Texas, SC shot it down big time.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/texas-voter-id-law/index.html]Federal court strikes down Texas voter ID law - CNN.com[/url]

[url=http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/09/06/4242621/a-tough-week-for-voter-id.html]A tough week for voter ID | Editorials | Rock Hill Herald Online[/url]


It's stuff like this that has boiled my blood with the GOP. They never had to resort to bush league tactics to win elections, but now they are openly trying to suppress the votes of the poor(aka..minorities). It's funny they weren't a issue until this election. I love how they use the "preventing voter fraud" as their guise, but we know good and well they don't want minorities turning out to vote against them.

A power message from John Lewis.

[url]http://www.c-span.org/DNC/Events/John-Lewis-at-the-2012-Democratic-National-Convention/C3873564/[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;937442]If Romney wins in PA or Ohio, it will because the GOP has restricted poor/minorities from voting with Voter ID laws.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/us/politics/pennsylvania-judge-keeps-voter-id-law-intact.html[/URL]
[/quote]setting up the excuses already with standard lib talking points...GOP wants to keep minorities from the polls...blah, blah, blah. I don't see what the problem is with having a valid ID to vote. Please show me an example of the "poor/minorities" who wouldn't be able to vote because of this law. It is simply to reduce voter fraud....which lib groups like ACORN are so fond of.

Also, the PA DoT is required to provide [B][I]free IDs[/I][/B] for any prospective voters who do not have the requisite form of identification.

[quote]
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/texas-voter-id-law/index.html"]Federal court strikes down Texas voter ID law - CNN.com[/URL]

[URL="http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/09/06/4242621/a-tough-week-for-voter-id.html"]A tough week for voter ID | Editorials | Rock Hill Herald Online[/URL]
[/quote]wrong answer. The Texas and SC laws are being stopped by the Dept. of Justice/Eric Holder and a special panel of judges in DC.

[quote]It's stuff like this that has boiled my blood with the GOP. They never had to resort to bush league tactics to win elections, but now they are openly trying to suppress the votes of the poor(aka..minorities). It's funny they weren't a issue until this election. I love how they use the "preventing voter fraud" as their guise, but we know good and well they don't want minorities turning out to vote against them.[/quote]one citizen, one vote. Shut down the games played by Dem/liberal groups that actively engage in voter fraud.

For starters:
[URL="http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/344577/"]ACORN operative admits ‘voter fraud’[/URL]

[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html"]More Acorn Voter Fraud Comes to Light - WSJ.com[/URL]

[URL="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/22/WIRecall-State-Senate-Recall-Underway-Fraud-and-Ethics-Problems-for-Dems-Continue"]Democrat Voter Fraud Hangs over Recount for WI State Senate Recall Race[/URL]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;937495]setting up the excuses already with standard lib talking points...GOP wants to keep minorities from the polls...blah, blah, blah. I don't see what the problem is with having a valid ID to vote. Please show me an example of the "poor/minorities" who wouldn't be able to vote because of this law. It is simply to reduce voter fraud....which lib groups like ACORN are so fond of.

one citizen, one vote. Shut down the games played by Dem/liberal groups that actively engage in voter fraud.[/quote]



:laughing-


[url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/jim-greer-denounces-florida-republican-party-officials-as-liars-and/1242157]Jim Greer denounces Florida Republican Party officials as liars, 'right-wing crazies' in deposition - Tampa Bay Times[/url]

[quote]On voter suppression, Greer said he had just completed a December 2009 meeting with party general counsel Jason Gonzalez, political consultant Jim Rimes and Eric Eikenberg, Crist's chief of staff, when questions arose about fundraising.

"I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting. It had been one of those days,'' he said.[/quote]


[url=http://politic365.com/2012/08/09/4-republican-staffers-indicted-for-blatant-and-disgraceful-voter-fraud-in-michigan/]Voter Fraud: 4 GOP Staffers Indicted in “Blatant and Disgraceful” Election FraudPolitical News and Opinion from a Multicultural Point of View | Political News and Opinion from a Multicultural Point of View[/url]

[quote]Four congressional staffers of former Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), who resigned from Congress on July 6, will face criminal felony charges for voter and election fraud in Michigan. The charges were announced by Michigan’s Attorney General today.[/quote]


[url]http://www.indystar.com/article/20120204/NEWS02/120203035[/url]


[quote]NOBLESVILLE, Ind. -- Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White was convicted of six felonies early this morning, and consequently lost his job.

But the Republican could get it back soon. [/quote]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;937495]GOP wants to keep minorities from the polls...blah, blah, blah. I don't see what the problem is with having a valid ID to vote. Please show me an example of the "poor/minorities" who wouldn't be able to vote because of this law. It is simply to reduce voter fraud....which lib groups like ACORN are so fond of.[/quote]

Dude, it doesn't take a genius to see what voter ID laws are designed to do and it's not get rid of voter fraud. Let's stop and think about this. Legally, you can't make people pay for the right to vote correct? However, you can supposedly require them to have a "Voter ID" that you can obtain for free.


Here is the catch. In order to obtain this "Voter ID" card, you'll need a valid ID and other forms of proof to be able to get it. So then, you have to start paying money for these items of proof, just so you can vote. Drivers License/State ID = costs money. Birth Certificates = costs money. Most forms of ID require money for you to obtain them.

So now you are asking a bunch of poor people to pony up cash to be able to get this "Free Voter ID" card, and have them jump through a ton of hoops in order to do so.


If you seriously think voter ID laws are designed to prevent voter fraud, then you really will believe I have beach front property to sell you in Arizona.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;937502]:laughing-
[URL="http://politic365.com/2012/08/09/4-republican-staffers-indicted-for-blatant-and-disgraceful-voter-fraud-in-michigan/"]Voter Fraud: 4 GOP Staffers Indicted in “Blatant and Disgraceful” Election FraudPolitical News and Opinion from a Multicultural Point of View | Political News and Opinion from a Multicultural Point of View[/URL]

[/quote]The link about Greer shows nothing, just the word of someone involved in a legal bru-ha-ha with the state GOP machine. No evidence, just unconfirmed statements.

The other links mention GOP voter fraud....which should be shut down as well.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;937504]Here is the catch. In order to obtain this "Voter ID" card, you'll need a valid ID and other forms of proof to be able to get it. So then, you have to start paying money for these items of proof, just so you can vote. Drivers License/State ID = costs money. Birth Certificates = costs money. Most forms of ID require money for you to obtain them.

So now you are asking a bunch of poor people to pony up cash to be able to get this "Free Voter ID" card, and have them jump through a ton of hoops in order to do so.


If you seriously think voter ID laws are designed to prevent voter fraud, then you really will believe I have beach front property to sell you in Arizona.[/quote]It's a C-O-N-spiracy! Sorry, not buying that someone who wants to vote is so poor they can't get a free ID.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

It's voter suppression plain and simple. There's zero evidence of voter fraud. It's a manufactured crisis to justifying Jim Crow tactics.

But..Romney won't carry either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[url=http://www.examiner.com/article/johnson-campaign-has-had-enough-of-republican-ballot-shenanigans]Johnson campaign has had enough of Republican ballot shenanigans - West Palm Beach Libertarian | Examiner.com[/url]


Nah...the GOP aren't trying to suppress votes. Nope. Just a figment of my imagination.


[quote]With word Friday that a challenge has been lodged in Ohio to try to remove Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson's name from the November ballot in Ohio, a senior advisor to Johnson's campaign is charging that the national Republican Party is mounting a concerted effort to "deny citizens the right to vote for the candidate of their choice."

In recent weeks, with the full support and legal assistance of the Republican Party, Johnson's ballot status has been challenged in Michigan, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Iowa and now Ohio.[/quote]


Bunch of ****ing clowns.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;937548]It's voter suppression plain and simple. There's zero evidence of voter fraud. It's a manufactured crisis to justifying Jim Crow tactics.

But..Romney won't carry either Ohio or Pennsylvania.[/quote]Wow, a requirement to have an ID is now a Jim Crow tactic. I've got nothing else to say on this.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

I thought that my support for Romney this time around may have clouded my judgement but I thought Obama's speech was very mediocre, turns out I wasn't the only one who felt that way. Nothing like the 2004 speech that saw him burst onto the scene and nothing like the 2008 speech that swept a lot of us off our feet.

[url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/how-obamas-speech-played-134900.html]How Obama's speech played - POLITICO.com[/url]

Clintons speech on the other hand was great.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Who cares ..really. It was effective and by far had more details than Mitt Romney. Obama has set the oratory bar so high that people have come to expect a grand slam every time he gives a speech. A part of me is glad it was met with some criticism from the press, because they've been consistently wrong about nearly everything this cycle. In fact, last election cycle too.

Anyway, he's already begun to pull away from Romney in all the post convention polls. Today's Gallup, which is by no means Obama friendly, has him with highest approval rating in 15 months.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

One of three polls showing President Obama with a growing convention bounce.

[url=http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/248297-obama-up-by-4-points-in-new-poll]Poll: Obama opens up four-point lead on Romney nationally - The Hill's Ballot Box[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;937603]Wow, a requirement to have an ID is now a Jim Crow tactic. I've got nothing else to say on this.[/quote]


I admit to being old but I swear I remember the "good old days" when people tried to get as many people as possible to vote,not bar them from voting!


Thanks George W and Thanks Florida .

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;937723]Who cares ..really. It was effective and by far had more details than Mitt Romney. Obama has set the oratory bar so high that people have come to expect a grand slam every time he gives a speech. A part of me is glad it was met with some criticism from the press, because they've been consistently wrong about nearly everything this cycle. In fact, last election cycle too.

Anyway, he's already begun to pull away from Romney in all the post convention polls. Today's Gallup, which is by no means Obama friendly, has him with highest approval rating in 15 months.[/quote]

Fair enough, in fact I couldn't agree more. He really has set the bar ridiculously high in terms of his speeches. However the fact of the matter is he now needed a 'home run' speech now more then ever. Last election the Democrats had a huge advantage to begin with simply with the fact that they weren't Republicans. This election the roles are reversed.

As for the polls I don't know. A lot of them are still within the margin of error and the fact that his current lead is coming off the convention makes me wonder if it'll even stick.

[quote]Obama's lead over Romney is comparable to Romney's former lead over the president after the Republican National Convention finished last week, Clark said. [/quote]

Also keep in mind John Kerry thought he was going to be the next president of the United States based on exit polls.
[url=http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/early_exit_polls_kerry_win_1102.htm]The Raw Story | Early exit polls predict Kerry will be victor[/url]

The funny thing is in a good economy no one would stand for the Republican social platform which is basically anti-gay, anti-women, anti-environment, pro-war, on top of blurring the lines of separation between church and state.

However peoples livlihoods come first and the funny thing is that right now the Bush presidency which never saw unemployment over 6% until the 2008 housing bubble collapse is starting to look pretty good to a lot of people right now. Not to different from Clinton either who had a 39% approval rating when he left office, which is now in the high 60's as people are asked to look back on his tenure in office.

Anyway the point of this disjointed rambling is simple. The economy is stagnant right now and people for better or worse are pointing fingers at the Dems. That alone will probably be enough to get Romney into office.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

well, the general truth of the world is that employment solves unrest. period.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=That Guy;937785]well, the general truth of the world is that employment solves unrest. period.[/quote]

I agree 110%,I just want it to be in the US and not China,India,or Mexico.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;937784]Fair enough, in fact I couldn't agree more. He really has set the bar ridiculously high in terms of his speeches. However the fact of the matter is he now needed a 'home run' speech now more then ever. Last election the Democrats had a huge advantage to begin with simply with the fact that they weren't Republicans. This election the roles are reversed.

As for the polls I don't know. A lot of them are still within the margin of error and the fact that his current lead is coming off the convention makes me wonder if it'll even stick.



Also keep in mind John Kerry thought he was going to be the next president of the United States based on exit polls.
[url=http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/early_exit_polls_kerry_win_1102.htm]The Raw Story | Early exit polls predict Kerry will be victor[/url]

The funny thing is in a good economy no one would stand for the Republican social platform which is basically anti-gay, anti-women, anti-environment, pro-war, on top of blurring the lines of separation between church and state.

However peoples livlihoods come first and the funny thing is that right now the Bush presidency which never saw unemployment over 6% until the 2008 housing bubble collapse is starting to look pretty good to a lot of people right now. Not to different from Clinton either who had a 39% approval rating when he left office, which is now in the high 60's as people are asked to look back on his tenure in office.

Anyway the point of this disjointed rambling is simple. The economy is stagnant right now and people for better or worse are pointing fingers at the Dems. That alone will probably be enough to get Romney into office.[/quote]

Other than your gut feeling, there's no evidence out there supporting your argument. Post convention, Mitt Romney has pulled ads out of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Wisconsin could be next. Basically, his path to victory is more narrow than the day this thread first began.

Yes, people are uneasy about the economy and Democrats have played a role in that. But Mitt Romney hasn't given voters one compelling reason to change leadership mid-stream. President Obama sucks, this and that isn't a campaign strategy. At least not a winning one. This morning on Meet The Press Romney changed positions on healthcare yet again, saying he won't scrap all of Obamacare. At first it was repeal and replace my first day in office. Now it's kinda repeal,or better yet, let's call it Romneycare!

If President Obama opens up a lead in Ohio, it's Katy bar the door.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Is this guy serious?

Romney: “I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform,” Romney said. “Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I'm going to put in place.”

[url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/09/romney-i-like-some-parts-of-obamacare-134948.html?hp=f2]Romney says he likes some parts of Obamacare - POLITICO.com[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;937548]It's voter suppression plain and simple. There's zero evidence of voter fraud. It's a manufactured crisis to justifying Jim Crow tactics.

But..Romney won't carry either Ohio or Pennsylvania.[/quote]

If your not checking ID's at the polls how would you even know how much voter fraud is going on. When I moved I forgot that I had changed my address and went to my old polling place to vote. I voted and when my dad went to vote they told him he had allready voted. He left and called me to see if I had voted at that location. Well to make a long story short they never followed up on this and no one ever questioned why his name was checked off when he said he had not voted. No chaecks and balance so there will not be any evidence of voter fraud.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;937504]Dude, it doesn't take a genius to see what voter ID laws are designed to do and it's not get rid of voter fraud. Let's stop and think about this. Legally, you can't make people pay for the right to vote correct? However, you can supposedly require them to have a "Voter ID" that you can obtain for free.


Here is the catch. In order to obtain this "Voter ID" card, you'll need a valid ID and other forms of proof to be able to get it. So then, you have to start paying money for these items of proof, just so you can vote. Drivers License/State ID = costs money. Birth Certificates = costs money. Most forms of ID require money for you to obtain them.

So now you are asking a bunch of poor people to pony up cash to be able to get this "Free Voter ID" card, and have them jump through a ton of hoops in order to do so.


If you seriously think voter ID laws are designed to prevent voter fraud, then you really will believe I have beach front property to sell you in Arizona.[/quote]

The poor has no problem with producing an ID to get food stamps and well fair why is it such a problem to vote?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;939242]The poor has no problem with producing an ID to get food stamps and well fair why is it such a problem to vote?[/quote]

I don't know, why don't you ask them? (while we're generalizing and all).

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/12/romney-doubles-down-on-obama-criticism/]Romney doubles down on Obama criticism[/url]

Mitt Romney really is a scum bag piece of shit.



[url=http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-under-friendly-fire-response-libyan-embassy-attack-213729383--election.html]Romney under friendly fire for his response to embassy attack in Libya | The Ticket - Yahoo! News[/url]

Asshole should be taking heat. He should just drop out of the race and have some class. Guess that's something money couldn't buy.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

If President Obama loses the election...some people are making plans already:

[Img]http://i.imgur.com/XQV7D.jpg[/img]

[Img]http://i.imgur.com/icU6p.jpg[/img]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;937442]If Romney wins in PA or Ohio, it will because the GOP has restricted poor/minorities from voting with Voter ID laws.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/us/politics/pennsylvania-judge-keeps-voter-id-law-intact.html[/URL]
[/quote]

PA resident here. Voter fraud, especially in Philly has been very bad in the last few elections...not to forget about the Black Panthers at the polls threatening anyone who "looks" like they might not vote for Obama last time. One election, 103% of registered voters in one Philly voting precinct cast a vote. More votes than registered voters. You support that?

How exactly is asking to show ID to match the voter registration book keeping anyone from casting a LEGITIMATE vote? That's the key...anyone opposed to this common sense standard is most likely on the side that commits voter fraud.

PA offers an ID card, always has for those who cannot or will not get a driver's license. It's not expensive, just a few dollars (about $8 or 10) as opposed to $36 for a driver's license. and there was been talk of giving it out for no cost to help people get the IDs they need for the election.

If you won't get one, you're most likely either lazy, an illegal immigrant, a criminal who doesn't want to show up at a Government office and present an address, or just stubborn. There is public transportation and assistance from county organizations in PA to help the elderly get this done...the offer was put out by the Agency on Aging to pick people up and help them get IDs.

Being poor, old or a minority are not valid excuses for not having an ID. Anyone in PA can get one. If people would take a few minutes to get it done instead of protesting, they'd be ready. This discussion has been going on for about 2 years...everyone had plenty of time.

How can you even get through life without ANY form of photo ID anyway?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;939242]The poor has no problem with producing an ID to get food stamps and well fair why is it such a problem to vote?[/quote]

GASP! How dare you speak the truth?


If we want to talk about REAL voter suppression, lets talk about the military absentee ballots, or lack of, in the 2008 Presidential election. NUMEROUS states, all conveniently "blue" states either did not send the overseas military absentee ballots out on time or at all. If anyone should get to vote, it's our active military.

They knew who the soldiers would support, so the ballots got "lost" or delayed...from several states. Sure...accident, right?