2012 Election Thread

IRHari

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
Let's start with the breaking announcement:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2f5070-e0f1-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_story.html
Paul Ryan is Romney’s pick for vice presidential nominee

NORFOLK — Mitt Romney has selected Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his vice presidental running mate and will make the long-awaited announcement here Saturday morning.

Romney’s campaign formally alerted supporters at 7 a.m. via an iPhone app that the seven-term congressman would be the Republican vice presidential nominee. Minutes later, the campaign sent out a release calling the Romney and Ryan “America’s comeback team.”

By selecting Ryan, Romney has made a potentially bold but risky move to reset the dynamics of the presidential election. He has chosen the intellectual heart of the movement within the GOP to slash deficits and signals a desire to place the nation’s looming fiscal challenges at the center of the campaign’s final months.

Romney will formally introduce Ryan as his new partner at a rally in the key swing state of Virginia--appearing with the congressman on the USS Wisconsin in Norfolk, a not-so-subtle nod to the pick.

Already, the campaign has unveiled a new Web site www.RomneyRyan.comredirecting readers to the Romney campaign’s home page.

By selecting the Wisconsin wonk and seven-term congressman, Romney offers voters the starkest possible choice on how to address issues of spending and taxing by embracing Ryan’s single-minded focus on reducing the nation’s debt without raising taxes by dramatically altering Americans’ relationship to their government.

It is a fight Democrats have savored, believing the details of Ryan’s budget will turn off voters and persuade them that Democrats offer a fairer path to reduced deficits through a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes on the wealthy.

Ryan’s plan to overhaul Medicare is particularly controversial and will now play a key role in critical swing states with large retiree populations, most notably Florida, where Romney and Ryan are scheduled to campaign on Monday.

While Romney’s pick does not replicate the surprise jolt of Arizona Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin four years ago, Ryan is nonetheless a splashier pick than several other contenders considered safer options.

Two others who were high on Romney’s short list of VP contenders — former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman — were informed in recent days that they would not be on the ticket, according to two Republican sources. Both were scheduled for other events on Saturday.

Ryan will likely energize a GOP base that sought a campaign with a clear vision for the country and not just one focused on criticizing President Obama.

Ryan got a strong boost over the past few days from conservatives, with editorials pushing his candidacy in the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard and the National Review.

But the pick could offer Democrats a boost as well, allowing them to fully link Romney to a Ryan spending plan they are convinced is deeply unpopular. It could also focus attention on government spending at the expense of discussion about how to jump-start the economy.

As chairman of the House Budget Committee, it fell to Ryan to convert the new GOP majority’s government-cutting promises into a detailed legislative blueprint following the 2010 midterm election.

The result was Ryan's “Path to Prosperity,” versions of which were adopted by the GOP House in 2011 and 2012. The plans call for balancing the budget by 2040 through deep cuts to virtually every social program, from Medicaid to food stamps to Pell Grants.

Ryan has proposed raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 and capping spending on those who turn 65 after 2023. In the future, seniors would be offered a set amount with which to purchase private health insurance on newly created federal exchanges.

Democrats charge the plan would essentially end Medicare by turning it into a voucher program. Ryan counters it would save the popular program by altering its unsustainble growth rate.

For many voters unfamiliar with the debate, Ryan will likely start out as an unknown. According to recent polls, reviews of Ryan tilt positive in Wisconsin and nationally, but not overwhelmingly so.

And large numbers, even in his home state don’t know enough about him to rate him favorably or unfavorably. In a CNN poll this week, Rubio was the top pick for No. 2 among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents, followed by Ryan and Christie tied at 16 percent.

A 42-year old ice fishing and fitness enthusiast, Ryan could use his boyish charm to offer digs at Obama not weighted with negativity.

Yet, after beginning his career as a congressional staffer, Ryan is also a creature of the deeply unpopular institution. His ability to campaign in the glare of the national spotlight remains untested.

First question: after years of saying we need a Prez with executive experience, why would Romney pick Ryan, who has zero executive experience?

EDIT (11/7/2012): Did anyone see a lot of Paul Ryan after that debate? It was kind of easy to forget about him. So much for that game changing pick that would make the campaign be about big ideas.

This is probably the best source I found to track the results:

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

Thanks for playing! Nice job voting/dissuading others from voting!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's Romney; changing his mind about things is what he does. If he didn't do something like this, his base might start to suspect an alien impostor, and you know how they feel about aliens, much less voting for one. I'm half joking.
 
Typical Republican party. Limited government talk, pres and VP who supported TARP, Medicare Part D, and budget proposals that raise the debt ceiling for nearly 40 years.

Even on their own criteria, they fail.

Paul Ryan:

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients (Medicare Part D). (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Won't even mention his drug warrioring and foreign adventurism.
 
Romney thought he could make this election like previous elections:

'the economy sucks so throw out the guy in charge and vote for me'

Yet even with the crappy economy Obama has been leading him, although narrowly.

Now instead of making it a referendum on Obama's stewardship on the economy now it'll partly be a referendum on the Ryan budget.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Romney thought he could make this election like previous elections:

'the economy sucks so throw out the guy in charge and vote for me'

Yet even with the crappy economy Obama has been leading him, although narrowly.

Now instead of making it a referendum on Obama's stewardship on the economy now it'll partly be a referendum on the Ryan budget.[/QUOTE]

It's a gamble for sure, because in selecting Ryan, the GOP just gave Obama his first electoral votes in the form of Florida (unless they're pulling some voter suppression bs like Ohio and Pennsylvania).

But Ryan's scorched earth economics does appeal to the austerity hawks who still fear hyperinflation (a prediction that flies in the face of every possible bit of empirical data).

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Typical Republican party. Limited government talk, pres and VP who supported TARP, Medicare Part D, and budget proposals that raise the debt ceiling for nearly 40 years.

Even on their own criteria, they fail.

Paul Ryan:

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients (Medicare Part D). (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Won't even mention his drug warrioring and foreign adventurism.[/QUOTE]

Facts. Surely you know they don't matter.
 
The most important thing that the media should be excited about is that he drove the Wienermobile for a living.

I actually don't really care, Romney's trying to hard not to alienate his supporters with every vote, that he's basically taken on an Anti-Biden as his running mate. Besides, it's going to be more of the same issues, where the platform involves telling people that social services, health care, infrastructure, things that can actually help them will hurt them a lot because the rich aren't getting a fair break.
 
215527_10150984914671260_2047748184_n.jpg
 
Really didn't expect Ryan. It makes sense,just unexpected. It's funny, some of those criticisms are positives to me, like the unemployment benefits.
 
[quote name='IRHari']First question: after years of saying we need a Prez with executive experience, why would Romney pick Ryan, who has zero executive experience?[/QUOTE]

Probably the same reason McCain criticized Obama's lack of experience then picked a running mate with even less experience. What that reason is though, I'm not entirely sure. It's bad if they do it, but ok if you do? That really seems to be a running theme in politics today, so let's go with that.

[quote name='mykevermin']It's a gamble for sure, because in selecting Ryan, the GOP just gave Obama his first electoral votes in the form of Florida (unless they're pulling some voter suppression bs like Ohio and Pennsylvania).[/QUOTE]

Florida has been in the news because of the "voter purge" they've been doing to supposedly root out "noncitizen" voters. Thing is, it's had so many problems with actual voters being removed that the Department of Justice has recently gotten involved.
 
I'm sure Ryan is on record somewhere with an apologetic interview, stating that they had lost their way on the spending issue, himself included. Just trust us this time.

Biden and Obama are both going to have to learn the budget in and out, which will be somewhat difficult since the thing isnt coherent. I think sneaking the phrase Randian into the debate might be a good idea.

That would certainly be one good thing about a Romney administration - the debt will cease to matter and we can spend like crazy again.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Florida has been in the news because of the "voter purge" they've been doing to supposedly root out "noncitizen" voters. Thing is, it's had so many problems with actual voters being removed that the Department of Justice has recently gotten involved.[/QUOTE]

Ohhh, right. Wasn't even Rick Scott purged from the rosters at one point?

[quote name='62t']Ryan appeal to voters that won't vote for obama in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Don't underestimate the GOP. There are a lot of Americans who aren't Republicans who buy into this austerity nonsense because it's not called out for as the voodoo economics (™ George H. W. Bush) that it is by the irresponsible "let's not call out flagrant lies by parties because then we'll be accused of being biased" media.

They hear the simpleton "American government = family with a credit card" metaphor, and that makes sense to them. Cut up the credit card, reign in spending, everything will begin to right itself.

It takes far more effort to look at what Ryan plans to do with his scorched-earth budget proposals in the name of austerity, realize he plans on destroying the middle and working class and not just destroying any safety net, but burning it with fire the first moment he can (with the cynical political ploy of not threatening current stakeholders, as evidenced in the "old people now can have medicare, but those who aren't current stakeholders are fucked" approach to medicare reform").

Couple all that with the recognition that Americans spend under 5 minutes, on average, considering who they will vote for and you have a perfect opportunity to get people who aren't conservative whackos on board the Paul Ryan austerity train.

They'll spend little time critiquing anything because "The Voice" is on. Or NFL.

The media is afraid to call it what it is because they're pussywhipped by the GOP.

The credit card metaphor is easily digestible and makes sense to people who won't think critically (i.e., those watching The Voice or NFL).

Bam! Republican suckerpunch means you lose!
 
Picking Ryan almost seems like throwing in the towel for me.

Especially in places like Florida. No way they win that state with it's large retiree population with a candidate that wants to turn Medicare into a voucher system and privatize social security (though he did drop the latter from his budget this year). So this tells me that the Romney campaign has totally written of Florida to the extent that they didn't even think picking Rubio could deliver the state.

And he's just not going to help with the moderate independents who are the key in a lot of the swing states. All he'll do is energize the tea party types, and those are largely irrelevant in the big swing states. Myke notes some cause for concern there. But this will just further energize the Obama negative ads as it's a ton of fuel for the fire to go after attacking medicare etc. and get the votes of people who see no more about the candidates than TV ads.

With Romney lagging pretty behind in polls currently I just don't see this VP pick making any difference.

Just reeks of the GOP more or less throwing in the towel and just wanting to keep the talks on tea party ideals for the next few months and into Obama's second term and have more hopes of things continuing to go bad economically and being able to get a real tea party ticket (Like Ryan/Cantor) elected in 2016.
 
You absolutely cant get complacent. The thing is still going to come down to a handful of voters in a handful of states. States that are riddled with voter ID, roll purging and the classics - voter caging and red shift.

Republicans REALLY do not like people voting.
 
Things will pick up post Convention when Romney is free to spend as much as he pleases. Then we'll see what he's really up to.
 
About the only thing I'm dreading the start of for this election season are those fucking robo calls. If I didn't give a shit about your message when you blare it over my tv speakers, why would I care now that you're calling my house to repeat the same shit? Yeah. Yeah. Obama is this and Romney is that. I get it. Now STFU and get off my damn phone.

There really needs to be a Do Not Call list for these things or a way for voters to join together and sue the PAC's and the individual campaigns to get them to stop these. It's harassment in my opinion.
 
I mute all advertisements on TV and Youtube anyway (it's a reflex now), and I alt-tab if I'm watching on the PC, so they can spend as much unlimited money on ad campaigns as they want. I won't be seeing them.

As for radio I only listen to Internet radio, not FM/AM radio, and there are no campaign ads on the shows I listen to (Adam Corolla, Tom Leykis).
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Paul Ryan:

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients (Medicare Part D). (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)[/QUOTE]

Thank you for that list. Already used it elsewhere. Not that it matters - if the fools were going to vote for Romney before, nothing on that list is going to change their mind now.

[quote name='Spokker']I mute all advertisements on TV and Youtube anyway (it's a reflex now), and I alt-tab if I'm watching on the PC, so they can spend as much unlimited money on ad campaigns as they want. I won't be seeing them.[/QUOTE]

Yay DVR + Ad Block + not listening to the radio much.

Seriously, I didn't even KNOW there were ads on YouTube until I was at a friend's house and they wanted to show me a Youtube video. Seriously, it was that frickin' surprising to me...

The most ads I see at a time is if I go see a movie at the theater and make it in time to sit through the previews. Thankfully, they haven't started putting political ads in those yet. Except for the whole Bane/Bain thing. :D :D :D
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
Seriously, I didn't even KNOW there were ads on YouTube until I was at a friend's house and they wanted to show me a Youtube video. Seriously, it was that frickin' surprising to me...
[/QUOTE]
They have to make money somehow. But ignoring ads is easy.

You can even figure out which videos are going to have ads and which ones don't as the video starts to load based on how the video area looks. If it looks a certain way, I know to hit mute before the commercial even starts.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just reeks of the GOP more or less throwing in the towel and just wanting to keep the talks on tea party ideals for the next few months and into Obama's second term and have more hopes of things continuing to go bad economically and being able to get a real tea party ticket (Like Ryan/Cantor) elected in 2016.[/QUOTE]

See, I can't see them as throwing in the towel because they see Ryan as a future big deal. If they wanted to "job someone out" (to use pro wrestling parlance, there are a number of people to choose from.

Dole/Kemp 1996 was an example of the GOP throwing in the towel before the convention. This, I don't see. They don't care if Romney goes down in flames, but they wouldn't willingly let Ryan go down with him.

Also, DMK's point w/r/t polling tricks, voter suppression, etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just reeks of the GOP more or less throwing in the towel and just wanting to keep the talks on tea party ideals for the next few months and into Obama's second term and have more hopes of things continuing to go bad economically and being able to get a real tea party ticket (Like Ryan/Cantor) elected in 2016.[/QUOTE]

The Superpac/Fox crowd is going to be sick of supporting tea party wackos by 2016. The real winner here is someone like Chris Christie.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Thank you for that list. Already used it elsewhere. Not that it matters - if the fools were going to vote for Romney before, nothing on that list is going to change their mind now.



Yay DVR + Ad Block + not listening to the radio much.

Seriously, I didn't even KNOW there were ads on YouTube until I was at a friend's house and they wanted to show me a Youtube video. Seriously, it was that frickin' surprising to me...

The most ads I see at a time is if I go see a movie at the theater and make it in time to sit through the previews. Thankfully, they haven't started putting political ads in those yet. Except for the whole Bane/Bain thing. :D :D :D[/QUOTE]

Np. Don't forget to mention that his "scorched earth" budget plan wouldn't balance until... 2040, as a best case scenario. And the debt ceiling would continue to be raised for a few years after that.
 
[quote name='Spokker']They have to make money somehow. But ignoring ads is easy.

You can even figure out which videos are going to have ads and which ones don't as the video starts to load based on how the video area looks. If it looks a certain way, I know to hit mute before the commercial even starts.[/QUOTE]
I just have Google Chrome with Ad Block Plus, Ghostery and Do Not Track Plus all actively running. I haven't had a single ad pop up virtually anywhere I've gone on the internet in the last 6 months since I started using those extensions.:D

Now if only I could get the same for my phone to auto boot the telemarketing and robo calls.
 
Here's a question. Does anyone know how badly the RNC is going to affect Tampa downtown? Because for the DNC in Charlotte it's not good.
 
‏@daveweigel
RT @AlecMacGillis: Getting a call from Tagg: the thin envelope from the admissions office.


‏@daveweigel
There is no trombone sad enough. RT @amaeryllis: MSNBC: Tagg Romney told Pawlenty he wasn't chosen.

;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']See, I can't see them as throwing in the towel because they see Ryan as a future big deal. If they wanted to "job someone out" (to use pro wrestling parlance, there are a number of people to choose from.

Dole/Kemp 1996 was an example of the GOP throwing in the towel before the convention. This, I don't see. They don't care if Romney goes down in flames, but they wouldn't willingly let Ryan go down with him.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think Ryan would get trashed. He's well liked by the far right, and that's not going to change. This will build his image even if they lose, and the loss would just be blamed on Romney who the far right base has never been behind.

I agree it's not the same degree of throwing in the towell as in 1996 as the election is no where near that over. They still think they have a chance. But it seems like taking Rubio to make a push for Florida, or Portman to make a push for Ohio would have been the better way to go to be more competitive.

It's doubtful Ryan even brings Wisconsin (which hasn't voted R since 1984) and he'll alienate a lot of working class voters, elderly voters and moderate independents in swing states. I think that will have more impact on the outcome in swing states than voter ID laws etc.

The election isn't going to be a landslide--it will be closer than in 2008 for sure. But I just don't see Romney/Ryan winning. Romney has consistently be behind in swing state polls and I just don't see the addition of Ryan changing that. It will charge up the base who was already not going to vote for Obama--maybe get a few more of those folks to the polls who might have stayed home before. But not enough to make up the gap in swing states IMO.
 
Assuming Romney loses, I wonder how long it will be before he gets thrown under the bus with people saying he wasn't a real republican? It happened before he became the front runner, then it seemed to have stopped. I still think he should have gone with Rubio, but that would have brought baggage as well, with his grandfather having been an illegal immigrant, and the obvious, he isn't anglo enough.
 
[quote name='Clak']I still think he should have gone with Rubio, but that would have brought baggage as well, with his grandfather having been an illegal immigrant, and the obvious, he isn't anglo enough.[/QUOTE]

Those things only really matter with morons in red states that they still would win anyway.

It would help with moderate independents in swing states which are the few % of the voter base that decide presidential elections.
 
So basically political ads are supposed to pander to minority groups by default now?:roll: Next thing you know you'll be saying they should be broadcast in Spanish as well as English to cater to the non English speaking immigrant populations of this country.
 
I suppose you also think the voting law change in PA(requiring voters to show ID to vote at the polls) is intended to disenfranchise certain voters and keep them from voting? The state announced the change a while ago and had even instituted a program to get FREE state issued ID's into the hands of voters. Unless voters have been living under a rock, they had to have heard of this program by now.

Apparently though, the following forms of ID are going to be considered acceptable in November:

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml
 
Watching romney and ryan together has made me realize that he's basically romney jr. They're even dressing alike.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']I suppose you also think the voting law change in PA(requiring voters to show ID to vote at the polls) is intended to disenfranchise certain voters and keep them from voting? [/QUOTE]
Many voters where I live already come to the voting booth with their IDs out. I noticed this all three times I observed the process. The poll workers just tell them they don't need it. Requiring ID is pretty much common sense and people are surprised when they are told it is not necessary.

By the way, don't all these poor people need ID to get their benefits and stuff?

Anyway, the deal breaker for me on Romney/Ryan is that they both support the Patriot Act. Then again, so does Obama. This won't be an honest topic of discussion at the debates because they both agree on this, as well as drone strikes. It's too bad they raised the polling threshold that gets third-party candidates into the debate. Including Johnson would make for a more interesting national discussion of the issues.
 
It's not made up BS. Lots of studies out there showing the poor and minorities are disproportionately more likely to not have photo ID. Those groups are more likely to not drive and not travel international and thus not need a driver's license or passport. And without those incentives many don't bother getting a state photo ID.

I'm not sure about the welfare benefits and whether photo ID is needed for those. You'd think so. But even if so, that would just mean photo id laws would hit the working poor who don't drive etc. and don't have photo ID as they make just enough to not get assistance.
 
The poor and minorities are disproportionally more likely to suffer from almost every negative thing. What else is new? Of course, when everybody is a "minority" I wonder how identity/class politics will play out then.

Anyway, you need to establish proof of identity and right to work in the United States to employers if you want a job. You should already have an ID for these things. You need an ID to get a discounted bus pass where I live.

If you are not required to work, such as if you're legitimately disabled (you are Eric the Actor), then the state should reach out to you to get you that ID, but that is a minuscule portion of the population.

And if these groups are more likely to not drive, how do they get to the voting booth in cases in which transit is ineffective or nonexistent? Should the government pay the taxi fare to get to the voting booth?

If you want people to vote and get ID in a state that requires ID, you should donate to a charity to get them identified, registered to vote and get them to the polling place on election day. Or just live in a state that does not require ID. It's that simple.

On a personal note, I needed identification and a social security card in order to work when I was 17. My parents lost mine. In order to get a social security card I had to get a copy of my birth certificate. I did this all with my own money earned by working in the underground economy (doing yard work in the neighborhood) and taking the bus.

I did it and so can the vast, vast, vast majority of people. If you care about voting, and a good chunk of the population does not, you will do what it takes to vote.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']I suppose you also think the voting law change in PA(requiring voters to show ID to vote at the polls) is intended to disenfranchise certain voters and keep them from voting? The state announced the change a while ago and had even instituted a program to get FREE state issued ID's into the hands of voters. Unless voters have been living under a rock, they had to have heard of this program by now.

Apparently though, the following forms of ID are going to be considered acceptable in November:

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml[/QUOTE]

Yes, all Voter ID laws have only one purpose, which is to shrink the pool of voters who tend to vote Democratic. A lot of those working poor, do in fact live under rocks. For a lot of them, making it out to the DMV during business hours is a considerable time/cost barrier. Doesnt matter if the ID's are free, because its still a solution looking for a problem. Could they make it out if they really wanted to, probably. But its a poll tax.

Since you mentioned PA, this this is how PA State Rep Mike Turzai sees it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87NN5sdqNt8

Also, in the ongoing lawsuit, they admitted in writing that they have no evidence of voter fraud. Neither does anyone else, because it just doesnt happen to any degree that isnt laughably low.
 
I have to admit though, the way they pulled off extended early voting in Ohio in Republican districts but not Democratic ones is quite brilliant.

The hours are set by the county elections board, which are evenly split between (D) and (R). In all cases, Democrats vote to make it easier to vote, so they all voted yes when it came to the question of extended hours. The Republicans voted no only in Democratic areas, which resulted in a tie. The tie is broken by the Republican Secretary of State, which sided with Republicans to say no.

Between shenanigans like this and voter ID, its no wonder they dont need Rob Portman. They've already rigged the game.
 
The Voter ID issue is only going to affect at most 8-9% of the voters in PA, so a vast majority of everyone can easily overcome those barriers.

The fundamental philosophical question is: Do you want more people to vote or less people to vote? Or is democracy stronger when voters are restricted only to those that are enthusiastic enough to overcome whatever barriers you put in place? After all, if you really wanted to vote, you would pay that poll tax. If you really wanted to vote, you would learn how to read. Or maybe it should only be property owners, since they have more at stake. If you really wanted to vote, you should put more skin in the game and buy property.

The divide between the parties on this core issue is distinct.

Obligatory Paul Weyrich. Its not unusual for me to stop from time to time and be thankful that he is still dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsl_TuFdes
 
But that's the thing. The state has been announcing the new law for MONTHS now and offering the poor people who can't afford them free ID's and I think they even did a mobile sign up for the elderly folks living in senior housing.

It just seems like people can't be bothered to step outside of their comfort zone, even if it means they're likely going to be asking someone working the polls in Nov.(i.e. me) to break the law for them by not requiring them to show ID.

The DMV is open on Saturdays and all sorts of hours. You're telling me that these poor shnooks can't either get a friend or relative to take them up there to be in compliance with the law?
 
bread's done
Back
Top