2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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!

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

LOL, this is probably example #3,392 why you should never take Al Sharpton's word on anything.

The full quote (LINK):

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: 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.

(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: (LINK):

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.”

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?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

LOL, this is probably example #3,392 why you should never take Al Sharpton's word on anything.

The full quote (LINK):

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: 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.

(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: (LINK):

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.”

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?

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

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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

So you admit equivalence. Wonderful.

This is why politics sucks, all round.

[12thMan]

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

[12thMan]

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.

[NC_Skins]

Johnson campaign has had enough of Republican ballot shenanigans - West Palm Beach Libertarian | Examiner.com


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

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.

Bunch of ****ing clowns.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

Wow, a requirement to have an ID is now a Jim Crow tactic. I've got nothing else to say on this.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Wow, a requirement to have an ID is now a Jim Crow tactic. I've got nothing else to say on this.

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 .

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

With no method to track fraud or checking ID there would be no way to track fraud. We do know for a fact that millions of dead people are still registered to vote.

If you think about what your saying is that the dems supporters are to dumb and lazy to go get an ID.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

With no method to track fraud or checking ID there would be no way to track fraud. We do know for a fact that millions of dead people are still registered to vote.

If you think about what your saying is that the Dem's supporters are to dumb and lazy to go get an ID.

let me ask you a question( or 2) first, do you think the only people that commit voter fraud are Dem's? and secondly, how much actual voter fraud goes on?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

let me ask you a question( or 2) first, do you think the only people that commit voter fraud are Dem's? and secondly, how much actual voter fraud goes on?

Nothing is exclusive to one party and who knows how much voter fraud goes on because we have no real checks and balance. I do know when I moved years back I voted totally by accident at the wrong polling place and they checked off my dads name like he had voted (same name). The only way I knew was when he went to vote they told him he had allready voted. There is something wrong with a system if they don't check any form of ID or have any way to track who is actually voting. Here is what's required in VA. They are not asking for much. To not have one of these forms of ID one would have to live isolated in the woods.

Acceptable forms of identification include the following:

• Virginia Voter Registration Card
• Valid Virginia driver's license
• Military ID
• Any Federal, Virginia state or local government-issued ID
• Employer issued photo ID card
• Concealed handgun permit
• Valid student ID issued by any institution of higher education located in the Commonwealth of Virginia
• Current utility bill, bank statement, government check or paycheck indicating the name and address of the voter
• Social Security card (*please see below as the social security card does not satisfy special federal ID requirements)

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Acceptable forms of identification include the following:

• Virginia Voter Registration Card
• Valid Virginia driver's license (Costs money)
• Military ID (selective and small base of people)
• Any Federal, Virginia state or local government-issued ID (Costs money)
• Employer issued photo ID card (rare and selective)
• Concealed handgun permit (Costs money)
• Valid student ID issued by any institution of higher education located in the Commonwealth of Virginia (Costs money)
• Current utility bill, bank statement, government check or paycheck indicating the name and address of the voter
• Social Security card (*please see below as the social security card does not satisfy special federal ID requirements)

Noted. So out of that whole group, really the only thing that is going to be useful without having to provide money or jump through a bunch of hoops is the utility bill/bank statement/gov check.

[Dirtbag59]

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.

How Obama's speech played - POLITICO.com

Clintons speech on the other hand was great.