I don't dislike early voting but the left would have it start months in advance if they could. There should be limits on how early voting can happen. I think a more sane approach would be to increase the number of polling places in each precinct. The government wastes enough money on stupid chit why not spend a few hundred million on some new polling stations?

(12-05-2012 04:38 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I don't dislike early voting but the left would have it start months in advance if they could. There should be limits on how early voting can happen. I think a more sane approach would be to increase the number of polling places in each precinct. The government wastes enough money on stupid chit why not spend a few hundred million on some new polling stations?

But that doesn't address what was occurring this election cycle. The Republicans weren't fighting a Democrat led movement to extend early voting for a month ahead of time, they were trying to limit the early voting already in place, in order to dissuade early voters. It's f*cking despicable, period. I would have a lot more respect for you all as posters if you showed a little bit of concern about this serious issue instead of brushing it off since it was your team that was doing the cheating.

(11-26-2012 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I wish I could say I was shocked.

Quote:“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.

“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

you mean suppression like this?

I assume you have handy all the names of the people these two clowns scared off from voting?

Waiting....

It looks like they cut the early voting from 14 days down to 8. In NC you can vote 19 days early. I thought the idea was so that people who would be out of town or otherwise unavailable would have a chance to vote. It seems like 2 plus weeks is a bit of a long time. It allows for exit polling to come out and show a candidate leading or losing and that could motivate more people to vote which is a good thing but I just don't think people need two weeks. I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I think 8 days is long enough and 19 is too long. Early voting is a good idea regardless of who it helps or hurts but in this case they changed the law for the wrong reasons and the people responsible are being prosecuted.

(12-05-2012 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I assume you have handy all the names of the people these two clowns scared off from voting?

Waiting....

I assume you can prove people weren't intimidated from voting?

waiting...


see how that works? idiot. Is it really unreasonable to assume a few people were intimidated and didn't vote? I don't think so.

(12-05-2012 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I assume you have handy all the names of the people these two clowns scared off from voting?

Waiting....

I think they're listed right next to the names of all the legitimate voters that having to produce an ID kept from voting.

I did like the case in Austin that got some press about a person not being able to use his California driver's licence to vote in Texas. Shouldn't he be voting in California? How do we know that he didn't and wasn't trying to vote a second time?

...I couldn't think of two states where voting twice would matter the least.

(12-05-2012 04:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ...I couldn't think of two states where voting twice would matter the least.

Probably true.

(12-05-2012 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I assume you have handy all the names of the people these two clowns scared off from voting?

Waiting....

I think they're listed right next to the names of all the legitimate voters that having to produce an ID kept from voting.

If this was what they truly wanted, they would have pushed for this earlier than they did, or they would have agreed to a reasonable time-frame to allow for everyone to acquire an ID like that.

Stop it, you're too intelligent for this. See it for what it is, a true attempt by a political party to encroach upon a subset of their citizens right to vote, and be pissed off about it. Please, I'm begging you to toss aside the partisan rhetoric and look at the facts. THIS IS DANGEROUS AND AN AFFRONT TO OUR NATION.

(12-05-2012 04:53 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I assume you have handy all the names of the people these two clowns scared off from voting?

Waiting....

I assume you can prove people weren't intimidated from voting?

waiting...


see how that works? idiot. Is it really unreasonable to assume a few people were intimidated and didn't vote? I don't think so.

Damn...and you have the nerve to call me the idiot?

No you stupid clown...not one person came forward to claim they were intimidated or kept from voting by these yahoos. Further, the polling location they were outside in 2008 went 95% for Kerry in 2004. And Obama won PA by 10 points over McCain in 2008. You don't prove things didn't happen...you prove they did.

(12-05-2012 05:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I assume you have handy all the names of the people these two clowns scared off from voting?

Waiting....

I think they're listed right next to the names of all the legitimate voters that having to produce an ID kept from voting.

If this was what they truly wanted, they would have pushed for this earlier than they did, or they would have agreed to a reasonable time-frame to allow for everyone to acquire an ID like that.

Stop it, you're too intelligent for this. See it for what it is, a true attempt by a political party to encroach upon a subset of their citizens right to vote, and be pissed off about it. Please, I'm begging you to toss aside the partisan rhetoric and look at the facts. THIS IS DANGEROUS AND AN AFFRONT TO OUR NATION.

Don't bet on it!

The internet is full of cases of folks who would have been disenfranchised by the voter ID laws passed by Republicans in many states. Thankfully, a lot of them got resolved before election day...but you have to think some didn't.

And Owl damn well knows that I and most every other liberal on this board is in favor of voter ID cards/laws.

Furthermore, THEY WEREN'T LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS BY AN ELECTED PARTY ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT VOTERS RIGHTS.

They aren't comparable, at all. Stop acting like they are.

(12-05-2012 05:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 04:53 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I assume you have handy all the names of the people these two clowns scared off from voting?

Waiting....

I assume you can prove people weren't intimidated from voting?

waiting...


see how that works? idiot. Is it really unreasonable to assume a few people were intimidated and didn't vote? I don't think so.

Damn...and you have the nerve to call me the idiot?

No you stupid clown...not one person came forward to claim they were intimidated or kept from voting by these yahoos. Further, the polling location they were outside in 2008 went 95% for Kerry in 2004. And Obama won PA by 10 points over McCain in 2008. You don't prove things didn't happen...you prove they did.

Yes, you're an idiot. Just because someone didn't come forward doesn't mean it didn't happen.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

(12-05-2012 05:12 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 05:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 04:53 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I assume you have handy all the names of the people these two clowns scared off from voting?

Waiting....

I assume you can prove people weren't intimidated from voting?

waiting...


see how that works? idiot. Is it really unreasonable to assume a few people were intimidated and didn't vote? I don't think so.

Damn...and you have the nerve to call me the idiot?

No you stupid clown...not one person came forward to claim they were intimidated or kept from voting by these yahoos. Further, the polling location they were outside in 2008 went 95% for Kerry in 2004. And Obama won PA by 10 points over McCain in 2008. You don't prove things didn't happen...you prove they did.

Yes, you're an idiot. Just because someone didn't come forward doesn't mean it didn't happen.

This is a private citizen, not an attempt to pass legislation. Stop acting like they're at all equivalent.

All I'm saying is two armed black panthers waving batons at a polling station could have scared some old white woman out of voting and odds are that person wouldn't come forward. Did it happen? I have no idea. But it's more possible than he will admit and those thugs should have been removed. How can asking for an ID disenfranchise voters but this doesn't?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

And all I'm stating is that that is wholly and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand; THE GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT THE VOTING ABILITY OF CITIZENS WHO HAD DIFFERING VIEWS THAN THE PARTY IN POWER.

Thats.f*cking.scary. If you aren't outraged about that, I don't know exactly what will outrage you.

(12-05-2012 05:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And all I'm stating is that that is wholly and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand; THE GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT THE VOTING ABILITY OF CITIZENS WHO HAD DIFFERING VIEWS THAN THE PARTY IN POWER.

Thats.f*cking.scary. If you aren't outraged about that, I don't know exactly what will outrage you.

I was responding to other posters I guess. I'm on my phone so my bad. I am outraged by voter suppression as were the officials who fired them and I think they're being investigated. This is a non-issue. It was handled appropriately.

(12-05-2012 05:20 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  All I'm saying is two armed black panthers waving batons at a polling station could have scared some old white woman out of voting and odds are that person wouldn't come forward. Did it happen? I have no idea. But it's more possible than he will admit and those thugs should have been removed. How can asking for an ID disenfranchise voters but this doesn't?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

For sake of discussion, lets say that it was possible that some whites were afraid of voting there due to the 2 armed guards. I would say that while possible, the probability is about zero. When you live in a racially mixed area, you see armed guards of different races all the time. I do not know if they were black panthers, but even if they were, black panthers do not have a history of attacking whites just for being white. The video is not scary or intimidating to me, but some viewers apparently think it is for whatever reasons.

I am ok with the ID as long as the state ensures everyone is provided one, and provided renewals if needed. They would also need a way to provide people who cannot get to an office (such as in a nursing home) with an ID. My only issue with the id requirements is that it is a solution for a problem that does not exist. Most voter fraud is via absentee mail in ballots.