What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

unofan said:
If the only way to prevent the "perceived" problem is to disenfranchise far more legitimate voters than the number illegal voters being prevented, then yes. You let it continue.

Until either A) fraud becomes so widespread that it's more than a perceived problem or B) there's a solution that actually works, of course we do nothing.
Click to expand...
Fraudulent voting IS disenfranchisement. The principal of democracy is one person, one vote. If fraudulent votes are included, then the legitimate votes count less than one.

So the choice is not between "ensuring that we count all legitimate votes" and "potential disenfranchisement." The current system ALREADY allows the potential for disenfranchisement, so the choice is just which type of potential disenfranchisement you prefer. The system doesn't have to "actually work" - it just needs to be better than the status quo.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Foxton said:
Did Romney just say that his plan was for people to get free private health care plans?
Click to expand...

I got up for a second to get a drink so I missed it. Wouldn't surprise me though.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

LynahFan said:
Fraudulent voting IS disenfranchisement. The principal of democracy is one person, one vote. If fraudulent votes are included, then the legitimate votes count less than one.

So the choice is not between "ensuring that we count all legitimate votes" and "potential disenfranchisement." The current system ALREADY allows the potential for disenfranchisement, so the choice is just which type of potential disenfranchisement you prefer. The system doesn't have to "actually work" - it just needs to be better than the status quo.
Click to expand...
We don't live in a democracy and with the numbers involved, there would have to be significant voting fraud occurring in order to actually shift the result. Yet there is no evidence that any large number is occurring anywhere.

But we do have direct statements from the people creating these ID regulations that they are doing it for a desired political result. To applause.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOT1bRYdK8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So where is this voter fraud actually occurring and why does it require so much money be throw at it to try and push through these ID laws?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

And will someone give Jim Lehrer his balls back. Or at least a taser?

"Uh... buh... sh... hey.. ummm... gov... mr... si.... Ok, I think that's enough on this top... My tax plan is so much better than (uh... sir....) the president's (hey... excu...) in so many (tim... uh... bu...)

and so on.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I feel like we should put these two children out on an ice rink and let them settle it like men. Or at least a basketball court, like middle school girls. ;)
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

The republicans had a healthcare plan? Was is it that they would do everything and anything they could think of to delay and kill any plan without offering an alternative?

When the **** did we get ice cream?
http://youtu.be/UFpARlLDrgo
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I think we should hook them up to this machine and let the moderator hit the button when they go off topic or over time:

S01E04%2B-%2BThere%2527s%2BNo%2BDisgrace%2BLike%2BHome.jpg
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Foxton said:
We don't live in a democracy and with the numbers involved, there would have to be significant voting fraud occurring in order to actually shift the result. Yet there is no evidence that any large number is occurring anywhere.

But we do have direct statements from the people creating these ID regulations that they are doing it for a desired political result. To applause.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOT1bRYdK8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So where is this voter fraud actually occurring and why does it require so much money be throw at it to try and push through these ID laws?
Click to expand...

NYC, Chicago, LA, Miami, Houston, Detroit and Philly, just to name a few.

Doing everything we can to reasonably maintain and improve the integrity of our elections is "throwing money" at the issue?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Old Pio said:
NYC, Chicago, LA, Miami, Houston, Detroit and Philly, just to name a few.
Click to expand...
Boldly stated and with not a thought to backing it up with even a single instance. You sir are a champion.

I just picked one at random.
Houston
http://www.khou.com/news/Political-analyst-Texas-voter-ID-fraud-is-not-rampant-162147655.html
According to the Texas Secretary of State’s office, since 2004 there have been 39,072,039 ballots cast in major elections in Texas.
Doing the math on that, if you assume that all 62 of the AG’s cases are valid, the percentage of fraud by comparison is .0001 percent.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Foxton said:
We don't live in a democracy and with the numbers involved, there would have to be significant voting fraud occurring in order to actually shift the result. Yet there is no evidence that any large number is occurring anywhere.
Click to expand...
There are roughly 600 cases of voter fraud going to the courts currently here in MN. There are some 2,000 cases being considered by district attorneys in this state. All of these cases come directly from the 2008 election.

Prior to the recounts during the US Senate vote here in MN, Senator Norm Coleman held a lead over now Senator Al Franken. With each recount, somehow significant quantities of Al Franken votes were found in heavily Democrat voting districts. Interesting.

Oh, and take a guess as to which districts these people have been charged with voter fraud.

And then think about by how many votes the filibuster for Obamacare passed. Voter fraud has had a clear and visible impact on the future of this country.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Listening to the debate, the President doesn't sound as good of a debater as he did in 2008. He sounds to be not nearly as well rehearsed as he did against Sen. McCain.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Foxton said:
We don't live in a democracy and with the numbers involved, there would have to be significant voting fraud occurring in order to actually shift the result. Yet there is no evidence that any large number is occurring anywhere.
Click to expand...
Well, if that's the standard, which result would be shifted if voter ID laws are enacted? Please be specific, or it apparently doesn't count.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

best comment I've read tonight:

Hope Obama has a big dinner planned, because Romney just ate his lunch

LOL
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I swear if I hear one more rambling about Obamacare I'm gonna lose it...
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

St. Clown said:
Listening to the debate, the President doesn't sound as good of a debater as he did in 2008. He sounds to be not nearly as well rehearsed as he did against Sen. McCain.
Click to expand...

You're right, he's playing down to the competition by not bothering to prepare. But it won't hurt the president, like it will the "Golden Gophers" when they drag their sorry carcasses up to Houghton in a couple weeks for their "easy four points."
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Jimjamesak said:
Out of curiosity, do any other states use the system we have here in Alaska? We get a paper ballot that has the standardized test like ovals next to the names. You fill in the oval, you stick the ballot in a machine that reads the ballot and counts the vote. You get a fast count of ballots and you have a paper record.
Click to expand...

They were using that in Indiana when I lived there.

They use the Hart E-Slate in Houston. I was just looking at their website, and they have a "verifiable ballot" option, though AFAIK TX doesn't use it.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Jim Lerher was the usual joke of a moderator - "But, but we're out of t-...oh OK, take another 60 seconds..."

As for the debate, the same old vapid platitudes and empty promises from both candidates. Slight edge to Romney, since Obama was left to defend himself more than he'd probably like.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I thought Obama laid a major egg tonight. Horrible "performance."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top