The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Advertise here

Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #301    
Old November 8th, 2012, 02:59 AM
Zet's Avatar
Zet
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly

Advertise here
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #302    
Old November 8th, 2012, 10:00 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
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.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #303    
Old November 8th, 2012, 10:47 AM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
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/2012...te-of-ohio.php
Reply With Quote
  #304    
Old November 8th, 2012, 11:47 AM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
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...
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #305    
Old November 8th, 2012, 12:11 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
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? 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.
Reply With Quote
  #306    
Old November 8th, 2012, 12:31 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #307    
Old November 8th, 2012, 12:52 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
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!

Last edited by FreakyLocz14; November 8th, 2012 at 08:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #308    
Old November 8th, 2012, 01:47 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
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.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #309    
Old November 8th, 2012, 05:08 PM
Otter Mii-kun's Avatar
Otter Mii-kun
Molly, you're cute ;)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 810, Michigan
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
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:
President/Vice President - Michigan vote
Barack Obama/Joe Biden (D-Chicago, IL/Wilmington, DE) (i) 2,457,846 54%
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (R-Belmont, MA/Janesville, WI) 2,079,268 45%
Virgil Goode/James Clymer (T-Rocky Mount, VA/Millersville, PA) 16,463 0%
Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala (G-Lexington, MA/Philadelphia, PA) 20,855 0%
Ross Anderson/Luis Rodriguez (N-Salt Lake City, UT/San Frenando, CA) 5,045 0%


U.S. Senate - Michigan
Debbie Stabenow (D-East Lansing) (i) 2,625,394 58%
Pete Hoekstra (R-Holland) 1,733,133 38%
Scotty Boman (L-Detroit) 83,043 2%
Richard Matkin (T-Hazel Park) 25,331 1%
Harley Mikkelson (G-Caro) 27,412 1%
John Little (N-Ann Arbor) 11,000 0%

Pete Hoekstra has been accused by his opponents for wanting to “gut Medicare” and turn it into a voucher program, similar to Paul Ryan's plan, while Debbie Stabenow has been nicknamed “Debbie Spenditnow” by opponents

U.S. Congress, District MI-01
Dan Benishek (R-Crystal Falls) (i) 166,833 49%
Gary McDowell (D-Rudyard) 164,536 47%
Emily Salvette (L-Ann Arbor) 10,917 3%
Ellis Boal (G-Charlevoix) 4,156 1%


U.S. Congress, District MI-05
Dan Kildee (D-Flint) 198,980 64%
Jim Slezak (R-Davison) 99,909 32%
David Davenport (I-Flint) 6,411 2%
Greg Creswell (L-Detroit) 4,872 2%

Incumbent Dale Kildee (D-Flint) opted not to run for re-election.

U.S. Congress, District MI-10
Candice Miller (R-Harrison Twp) (i) 226,151 69%
Chuck Stadler (D-Vassar) 98,058 30%
Bhagwan Dashairya (L-Westland) 4,796 1%


U.S. Congress, District MI-11 (full term)
Kerry Bentivolio (R-Milford) 182,603 51%
Syed Taj (D-Canton) 159,780 44%
John Tatar (L-Livonia) 9,679 3%
Steven Duke (G-Jonesville) 4,590 1%
Daniel Johnson (N-East Lansing) 3,262 1%


48th District State House
Pam Faris (D-Clio) 25,314 64%
Jeff Woolman (R-Davison) 14,520 36%

Incumbent Richard Hammel (D-Mt Morris Twp), whose location was moved to the 49th District, cannot run again due to term limits.
Pam Faris is actually former Lt. Governor John Cherry's wife, who had previously served on the Mott Community College Board of Trustees, and barely won the August Democratic state primary.

51st District State House
Joseph Graves (R-Linden) (i) 24,515 55%
Steven Losey (D-Linden) 20,373 45%

The previously elected officeholder for this district, Paul Scott (R-Grand Blanc), was recalled in November 2011.

81st District State House
Dan Lauwers (R-Brockway) 20,929 54%
Patrick Phelan (D-Marine City) 17,945 46%

Incumbent Jud Gilbert (R-Algonac) cannot run again due to term limits.

82nd District State House
Kevin Daley (R-Lum) (i) 24,471 59%
John Nugent (D-Lapeer) 17.028 41%

Considering all the John Nugent signs I saw, and the attacks by him against Daley, mainly accusing him of being anti-public education, I was expecting Nugent to win. This will be Daley's third and final term.

83rd District State House
Paul Muxlow (R-Brown City) (i) 19,647 56%
Carol Campbell (D-Lexington) 15,684 44%


84th District State House
Terry Brown (D-Pigeon) 21,608 53%
Dan Grimshaw (R-Vassar) 15,654 38%
Ed Canfield (I-Sebeawing) 3,804 9%

Incumbent Kurt Damrow (R-Port Austin) was defeated in the primary.
I was expecting this race to go to Brown. Since he previously served two terms in the House before being defeated in 2010, this will be his third and final term.

Lapeer County Sheriff
Ron Kalanquin (R) (i) 22,440
Jeff Fick (D) 19,252

Kalanquin won the GOP state primary in August against corrections deputy Mike Gepfrey in a relatively close race, while Fick won the Democratic primary in a huge landslide. During the primary season, the Kalanquin vs. Gepfrey race was heavily contested and heated, with numerous attacks coming from both candidates against the other.

Marathon Township Supervisor
Fred Moorhouse (D) (i) 1,132 53%
Troy McDowell (R) 641 30%
Dale A. Fuller (I) 366 17%


Marathon Township Treasurer
Sandi Glesenkamp (D) (i) 1,371 75%
Pam Jaksa (I) 460 25%


Marathon Township Trustee (2 positions)
Jim Chaffer (D) (i) 1,171 37%
Karen Webber (D) 1,114 35%

Bill Sickner (R) 917 29%

Incumbent Kathy RaCosta (D) did not run for re-election.

The incumbent for township clerk, Dawn Johnson (D), ran unopposed.

Michigan Supreme Court (2 positions)
Bridget Mary McCormack (D) 1,483,343 23%
Stephen Markman (R) (i) 1,476,456 23%

Colleen O'Brien (R) 1,368,614 22%
Connie Marie Kelley (D) 1,356,233 21%
Kerry Morgan (L) 258,999 4%
Doug Dern (NLP) 216,591 3%
Bob Roddis (L) 178,818 3%

This is a nonpartisan race, even though the candidates are nominated at party conventions. The Democrat-nominated candidates, including the partial-term nominee Shelia Johnson (see below) have been pitched as protecting families and children, while the Republican nominees (including the partial-term nominee below) have all been accused of siding with the insurance companies 100% of the time in their rulings. Supporters of the Republican candidates claim that they will rule according to the law and not legislate from the bench.

Michigan Supreme Court - Partial Term ending Jan. 1, 2015
Brian Zahra (R) (i) 1,724,246 50%
Shelia Johnson (D) 1,419,890 41%
Mindy Barry (T) 303,512 9%

Again, this race is nonpartisan. Mindy Barry has been accused of being a “fake” candidate by the Michigan Democratic Party for having worked with Republicans and voting in Republican primaries in the past. The MDP also accused her candidacy of drawing votes away from their own female candidates.

State Proposal 1 - Keep Gov. Snyder's Emergency Manager law
Yes 2,104,177 48%
No 2,308,146 52%

This is a veto referendum, in this case which the Snyder-supported Emergency Financial Manager law (PA 4 of 2011) was put up to voters to decide whether to keep it. A Yes vote would keep PA 4, while the winning No vote repealed this law altogether. The previous Emergency Manager law, PA 72 of 1990, has been reinstated.

State Proposal 2 - Add collective bargaining to State Constitution ("Protect Working Families")
Yes 1,888,979 42%
No 2,599,004 58%

Kind of surprised at this result, considering how powerful unions are in Michigan, and the extensive ad campaign backing this proposal, some of the ads even claiming this would "protect our children".

State Proposal 3 - Amend State Constitution to increase renewable energy mandates ("Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs")
Yes 1,673,796 37%
No 2,827,919 63%


State Proposal 4 - Amend State Constitution to maintain forced union dues of home health care providers ("Safe, Affordable, Quality Home Care")
Yes 1,922,833 43%
No 2,526,139 57%

I'm also very surprised this one went down too, considering the extensive ad campaign supporting this, featuring elderly home care patients. I saw very little advertising from the opposite side.

State Proposal 5 - Require 2/3 majority for tax increases ("Michigan Alliance For Prosperity")
Yes 1,383,439 31%
No 3,046,514 69%


State Proposal 6 - Require voter approval for new border-crossing bridges ("The People Should Decide")
Yes 1,807,332 40%
No 2,657,968 60%

Same reaction on my part to this one as with 2 and 4, again because of the extensive ad campaign by Matty Moroun (who was the primary backer of this proposal, as well as Prop 5.)

Lapeer County Dept. of Veterans Affairs Millage
Yes 21,777 55%
No 17,894 45%
__________________

Last edited by Otter Mii-kun; November 8th, 2012 at 07:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #310    
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:37 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
In order to prevent election, we need to require ID to vote, and have people vote caucus style.
Reply With Quote
  #311    
Old November 8th, 2012, 10:18 PM
Zet's Avatar
Zet
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
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/2012/1...?utm_hp_ref=tw

Freaky: here's an unbiased news source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/fai...-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)
Reply With Quote
  #312    
Old November 9th, 2012, 03:48 AM
Rodriguezjames55's Avatar
Rodriguezjames55
No Jokes #MegaCharizard
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United states, New York, New York City, Bronx
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Rodriguezjames55
im pissed that only 10% of 10% of people that said they vote johnson didn't
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #313    
Old November 9th, 2012, 05:08 AM
Went's Avatar
Went
With added juicycles
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Madrid
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Send a message via Skype™ to Went
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodriguezjames55 View Post
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.
__________________
Mario | "You might say I'm nosy or naive, but I just can't leave you alone."
Reply With Quote
  #314    
Old November 9th, 2012, 09:09 AM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zet View Post
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/2012/1...?utm_hp_ref=tw

Freaky: here's an unbiased news source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/fai...-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.
Reply With Quote
  #315    
Old November 9th, 2012, 09:12 AM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Please don't try to make a sweeping assumption of all Democrats and their opinions on ID laws.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #316    
Old November 9th, 2012, 09:59 AM
Shiny Celebi
Donator Tier 3
Community Supporter Tier 3
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Internet
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
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 :/
__________________
BMGf Ever Grande City
Reply With Quote
  #317    
Old November 9th, 2012, 12:18 PM
Netto Azure's Avatar
Netto Azure
<<38th Generation Leaf Knight>>
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Holy Temple, Kingdom of Forgotten Sound
Gender: Male
Nature: Gentle
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
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.
__________________
Elmairy Leaf
Class: Leaf Knight
LV. Moderator








“Sun, are you really all right? Does it hurt? Do you need help? Are you sure?”

Reply With Quote
  #318    
Old November 9th, 2012, 01:41 PM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
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.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #319    
Old November 9th, 2012, 03:35 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netto Azure View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #320    
Old November 9th, 2012, 04:47 PM
KingCharizard's Avatar
KingCharizard
C++ Developer Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
I think Reelecting Obama was a huge mistake for this country....
__________________
My personal website. UPDATED 8/29/2013
Reply With Quote
  #321    
Old November 9th, 2012, 05:25 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
We do have a national ID system, or at least something that can be used as one.

Our SS numbers. That is, right now, our version of a 'National ID'

Anyway, the reason why the Fed is trying to get voter regulation is because what happens in a single state can easily affect the Union as a whole. Elections are a prime example of a, supposed state issue, that can and will effect the entirety of the Union.

Well, some elections. I agree that for minor voting issues, such as a town electing a new mayor, really don't play that large a part to the nation. But voting for senators and congress members? And the president? Those are going to effect much more then just a state.

In those cases, Voter Fraud isn't a state issue. It's a national issue. And the Federal Government is, as is should be, trying solve the issue for the betterment of the nation.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #322    
Old November 9th, 2012, 05:31 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
We do have a national ID system, or at least something that can be used as one.

Our SS numbers. That is, right now, our version of a 'National ID'

Anyway, the reason why the Fed is trying to get voter regulation is because what happens in a single state can easily affect the Union as a whole. Elections are a prime example of a, supposed state issue, that can and will effect the entirety of the Union.

Well, some elections. I agree that for minor voting issues, such as a town electing a new mayor, really don't play that large a part to the nation. But voting for senators and congress members? And the president? Those are going to effect much more then just a state.

In those cases, Voter Fraud isn't a state issue. It's a national issue. And the Federal Government is, as is should be, trying solve the issue for the betterment of the nation.
The representatives who are elected represent the states (or portions of the states in the House). They don't represent the federal government. As for the President, the people don't even elect the President. The states do that.
Reply With Quote
  #323    
Old November 9th, 2012, 05:45 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Yes, but they represent their state against other states. Congress and the Senate, while made up of people from each state, make decisions that effect the nation as a whole.

And if the people don't elect the President, why so much firestorm over the President/Republicans trying to 'supress' voters?
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #324    
Old November 9th, 2012, 08:09 PM
Zet's Avatar
Zet
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharizard View Post
I think Reelecting Obama was a huge mistake for this country....
And electing a man who wears magic underwear, and has been caught numerous times tax dodging it isn't a huge mistake? It took eight years for Bush to make the mess, and I think Obama deserves eight years to clean it up.
Reply With Quote
  #325    
Old November 9th, 2012, 11:43 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
Yes, but they represent their state against other states. Congress and the Senate, while made up of people from each state, make decisions that effect the nation as a whole.

And if the people don't elect the President, why so much firestorm over the President/Republicans trying to 'supress' voters?
The people actually elected temporary representatives who in turn elect the President. Nothing in the Constitution says that members of the Electoral College have to be directly elected. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, "There is not federal constitutional right to vote for electors for President of the United States".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zet View Post
And electing a man who wears magic underwear, and has been caught numerous times tax dodging it isn't a huge mistake? It took eight years for Bush to make the mess, and I think Obama deserves eight years to clean it up.
I didn't vote for Romney, so that's a moot point. Also, the mess that Obama inherited can be traced back way farther than Bush's eight years. Let's also not forget that the Democrats controlled Congress before and after Obama was first elected.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links


Advertise here
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.