The American Politics Discussion Thread

Zet · Nov 8, 2012

FreakyLocz14 said:
Our troops should sue so that Obama can't suppress their votes. Lawsuits should also be filed over the fixing of voting machines that Obama-backing union workers were hired to "service", as well as allowing illegals to vote. He did not win a second term legitimately.

It took Bush eight years to make the mess, so it's only fair to give Obama eight years to fix it.

Also I wouldn't want a man who tax dodges, refuses to release ten years worth of tax information, and wears magic underwear to be president.

Esper · Nov 8, 2012

What is this talk about people in the military not being able to vote? I do a quick search of this and I get a bunch of "news" websites I've never heard of which seem to have a very heavy right-wing slant to them. Can I get some info on this without the spin? If there are people who aren't getting the right to vote then of course that's bad, but I'm not ready to accept this as truth when it comes from the right-wing echo chamber.

FreakyLocz14 · Nov 8, 2012

Scarf said:
What is this talk about people in the military not being able to vote? I do a quick search of this and I get a bunch of "news" websites I've never heard of which seem to have a very heavy right-wing slant to them. Can I get some info on this without the spin? If there are people who aren't getting the right to vote then of course that's bad, but I'm not ready to accept this as truth when it comes from the right-wing echo chamber.

I found a link for you. Here you go!
http://www.norcalblogs.com/gate/201...rsonal-from-voting-in-swing-state-of-ohio.php

Oryx · Nov 8, 2012

Wait, so the votes he's "suppressing" are military members...that are actually there, not overseas? I don't get it. Why would a military person living a civilian life (i.e. not overseas) get extra time to vote early? o_O That doesn't make sense...

FreakyLocz14 · Nov 8, 2012

Toujours said:
Wait, so the votes he's "suppressing" are military members...that are actually there, not overseas? I don't get it. Why would a military person living a civilian life (i.e. not overseas) get extra time to vote early? o_O That doesn't make sense...

Active duty military members can be statationed here, but they must vote in the state and county where they are from, not where they are stationed. The law that Obama challenged was designed to help our troops have ample time to vote by mail. We're a physically large country, so home can be far away from where you're stationed if you're in the military.

Oryx · Nov 8, 2012

Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so.

That's referring specifically to in-person, it really can't be read any other way. That's from the linked article by the way, as I'm trying to follow this all the way back.

If the person is there, as in in-person at their county, why would they get extra time to vote? They're already in their area.

Edit: from a much more reputable source:

A federal judge sided with the Obama campaign and ruled Friday to order Ohio to restore three days of early voting before Election Day, a decision that could affect the outcome of the 2012 election in a key battleground state.

...

The dispute over military voting spilled into the presidential campaign earlier this month, when the Mitt Romney campaign falsely accused the Obama campaign of trying to curtail rights for military voters, characterizing the lawsuit as an "outrage" and an effort to deprive military voters of extra days to vote.

The Obama campaign lawsuit seeks to expand the voting period for all voters, not to deprive military voters of that opportunity. The judge sided with the Obama camp, calling the early voting restrictions "arbitrary."

This article goes on to explain that no one's disenfranchising anyone, the campaign was trying to get early voting for everyone, not just military voters. That makes more sense now.

FreakyLocz14 · Nov 8, 2012

Toujours said:
That's referring specifically to in-person, it really can't be read any other way. That's from the linked article by the way, as I'm trying to follow this all the way back.

If the person is there, as in in-person at their county, why would they get extra time to vote? They're already in their area.

Edit: from a much more reputable source:

This article goes on to explain that no one's disenfranchising anyone, the campaign was trying to get early voting for everyone, not just military voters. That makes more sense now.

The law in Ohio did make no distinction between military voters who are away from home, and those who are still in their home area, because to do that would require military voters to prove that they are stationed elsewhere, and judges would have to determine how far away is sufficient to warrant extra time. It would have been a real legal mess to require military voters to show proof of being stationed x amount of miles away in order to get extra time to vote. Early voting can be down in-person or by mail.

P.S.
The Huffington Post is a reputable source? Even they themselves admit that they're a liberal propaganda outlet!

Oryx · Nov 8, 2012

Do you have the actual court case? Huffington Post is far more reputable than a blog with sketchy sources. If you have a more reputable source, especially the case itself, then feel free to link them.

This is referring to in-person voting, not mail voting. Any person in Ohio can vote by mail for any reason at any time, whether or not they're overseas or across the state or don't feel like waiting in line on Election Day. Where a person is stationed means nothing unless they're stationed close enough to vote early in-person, and even then the goal was to expand voting to everyone, not to restrict voting of military people.

Guest123_x1 · Nov 8, 2012

FreakyLocz14 said:
Illegal immigrants and the deceased are legitimate voters? I'm done.

Funny, I've been reading in the past about complaints from the Michigan Democratic Party about Republican Secretaries of State (Terri Lynn Land and now Ruth Johnson) not purging the voter registration rolls of no-longer-citizens and dead people. The MDP also complained about the U.S. Citizenship checkbox put on ballot applications by Johnson.

Mr. X said:
True that. We have laws designed to prevent this, however they are the ones writing the laws. Basically, they can write in loopholes for their use.

Anyway, the entire 'entitlement' situation is summed up in this pic.

Edit - Yeah, thats Capitalism for yeah. With enough money, you can buy anything. Including people/votes/supporters.

With the way our laws are written, to benefit corporate special interests, we don't even have capitialism-it's more like crony capitalism, which is not quite the same thing. It's just like with the Dodd-Frank "financial reform" law, which the media and proponents pitched as a way to rein in corporate excesses, especially in the financial sector, but turned out to be a complete sham and amounted to a big giveaway to the banking, securities, and commodities trading industries, and basically amounted to more deregulation rather than reregulation of our most powerful financial interests and maintaining the status quo that caused the financial crisis in the first place.
Not to mention the ObamaCare individual mandate was written for insurance company interests, rather than to protect the general welfare of Americans.

TRIFORCE89 said:
So, Obama-backed union workers rigged the voting machines in Pennsylvania to switch Obama to Romney? All the other candidates listed worked just fine

That's just one of the reasons why the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) should never have been passed in the first place, and why I call it the "Help The Voting Machine Corporations Act".

On to the results of other races I've been watching, with commentary on select races:

Spoiler:

FreakyLocz14 · Nov 8, 2012

In order to prevent election, we need to require ID to vote, and have people vote caucus style.

Zet · Nov 9, 2012

FreakyLocz14 said:
The Huffington Post is a reputable source? Even they themselves admit that they're a liberal propaganda outlet!

Fox news is a Republican propaganda outlet, so what's your point?

FreakyLocz14 said:
In order to prevent election, we need to require ID to vote, and have people vote caucus style.

You need to have ID to vote here in Australia.

Also on a Politics related note, have this hilarious read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...a-tweet-backlash_n_2093160.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Freaky: here's an unbiased news source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/fa...n-male-president/story-e6frf7jo-1226512853271 (that image is wrong about one thing. We do have guns, though no one really bothers with them because we know how to lift)

Rodriguezjames55 · Nov 9, 2012

im pissed that only 10% of 10% of people that said they vote johnson didn't

Ivysaur · Nov 9, 2012

Rodriguezjames55 said:
im pissed that only 10% of 10% of people that said they vote johnson didn't

It's the bipartisan effect. Many people say they want to vote for a third candidate, but, in the end, they know that one of the two big parties will win and end up picking up a side and voting for the "lesser evil" because any vote for a third party is a vote for "the other guy".

That's the sort of mentality that keeps these systems going on for decades.

FreakyLocz14 · Nov 9, 2012

Zet said:
Fox news is a Republican propaganda outlet, so what's your point?

You need to have ID to vote here in Australia.

Also on a Politics related note, have this hilarious read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...a-tweet-backlash_n_2093160.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Freaky: here's an unbiased news source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/fa...n-male-president/story-e6frf7jo-1226512853271 (that image is wrong about one thing. We do have guns, though no one really bothers with them because we know how to lift)

I had no idea that Australia is so RACIST!!! The Democrats think that requiring ID to vote is the epitome of racism.

Oryx · Nov 9, 2012

Please don't try to make a sweeping assumption of all Democrats and their opinions on ID laws.

Shiny Celebi · Nov 9, 2012

FreakyLocz14 said:
I had no idea that Australia is so RACIST!!! The Democrats think that requiring ID to vote is the epitome of racism.

Um I consider myself a democratic leaning individual and I dont think it's racist to require ID to vote :/

Netto Azure · Nov 9, 2012

FreakyLocz14 said:
I had no idea that Australia is so RACIST!!! The Democrats think that requiring ID to vote is the epitome of racism.

What a sweeping declaration. The problem with Voter ID laws is that they are not provided in a standard way to all Americans. If there was no barrier to access and cost most people would be ok with it.

Although many civil libertarians are against a National ID system due to fears about privacy and such, which in my honest opinion makes the whole issue more complicated than it first appears considering that some people who advocate ID voter laws would object to such a thing and instead are ok with the unstandardized, cost and access prohibitive state ID's hence the charges of disenfranchisement targeting Democratic leaning constituents.

Esper · Nov 9, 2012

Toujours said:
That's referring specifically to in-person, it really can't be read any other way. That's from the linked article by the way, as I'm trying to follow this all the way back.

If the person is there, as in in-person at their county, why would they get extra time to vote? They're already in their area.

Edit: from a much more reputable source:

This article goes on to explain that no one's disenfranchising anyone, the campaign was trying to get early voting for everyone, not just military voters. That makes more sense now.

Thanks for this. It's kind of fun to go to a political blog and play "find the source" but sometimes I just don't want to waste the time clicking link after link to find that I end up where I started.

So it seems that, like I had assumed, the accusation that military people were being denied/disenfranchised in some way is false. Obama's team was not saying that it was unfair that these people could vote for three extra days, but that it was unfair that everyone else couldn't.

FreakyLocz14 · Nov 9, 2012

Netto Azure said:
What a sweeping declaration. The problem with Voter ID laws is that they are not provided in a standard way to all Americans. If there was no barrier to access and cost most people would be ok with it.

Although many civil libertarians are against a National ID system due to fears about privacy and such, which in my honest opinion makes the whole issue more complicated than it first appears considering that some people who advocate ID voter laws would object to such a thing and instead are ok with the unstandardized, cost and access prohibitive state ID's hence the charges of disenfranchisement targeting Democratic leaning constituents.

We are a federal republic, meaning that our nation is a federation of soveirgn states that have agreed to surrender some of their sovereignty to join the Union, but identification and regualting elections is a state issue. If a state decides that it needs to require ID to vote to pursue the legitimate state interest of preventing election fraud, then they should be allowed go. I would oppose a federal voter ID regulation.

KingCharizard · Nov 9, 2012

I think Reelecting Obama was a huge mistake for this country....

The American Politics Discussion Thread

More options

Zet

Esper

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Oryx

CoquettishCat

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Oryx

CoquettishCat

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Guest123_x1

Guest

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Zet

Rodriguezjames55

No Jokes #MegaCharizard

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Shiny Celebi

Netto Azure

Kiel

Esper

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

KingCharizard

C++ Developer Extraordinaire