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?