TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 12, 2012 19:46:34 GMT -5
And again.....how would voter ID prevent this? These were absentee ballots. It didn't happen at the polls.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 12, 2012 22:06:10 GMT -5
Additionally, I'm still unsure how people interact with our economy w/o a gov't issued photo ID. Don't you need one for food stamps/welfare? I know I've never gotten a job w/o providing a gov't ID (that includes the various fast food / wait staff jobs I've had). Do people hire people w/o a gov't issued photo ID? Finally, I think that if students want to vote where they attend school, they should change their permanent residence. I don't know why they should get to vote in an election where they attend school and where they grew up (which, w/o an ID requirement, they can). Then again, if D.C. or Massachusetts or one of the other states that have a lot of students (or old people, or other people that are able to function in life w/o ever showing a photo ID) wants to allow voting without a photo ID, then they have that right. Going back to your initial hypocrisy point--I think this is generally a state's right issue--if South Carolina wants to do it, that's good. I support that. If Massachusetts or California doesn't want to do it, that's their choice. I think it's a mistake, but that's for their voters (and anyone else that wants to walk up and pretend to be someone they are not ;D) to decide. Agree 100% with this, and it's why I am fairly neutral when it comes to voter ID. In my mind, the majority of people who don't already have a state-issued driver's license or photo ID are either anti-government nutjobs or complete non-contributers to the American economy. Everyone deserves equal access to the polls, but this fight seems to be more about political groups saying the words "civil rights" than individuals actually complaining that their civil rights are being violated. Although I've rammed the poll tax comparison down everyone's throat, avoiding that argument is an easy fix for state governments: just tweak the statutes so that at least one acceptable form of required identification is available at no cost. My guess is that some of these statutes will be amended (possibly in response to judicial action), but that the idea of voter ID is not going anywhere, particularly in reliably Republican states like mine. I do think it is ideologically inconsistent for the "small government" party to be pushing regulations which affect individual civil rights. There seems to be so much of that inconsistency on the right these days (death to the EPA and its regulations, but please pass the Federal Marriage Amendment). I am sorry if the words "poll tax" remind people of segregation, but I can't think of any other pay-to-play statutes other than those bearing that label. I agree that some of the rants in this thread are unreal. Racism has always existed across the entire United States. It very much still exists in the southern United States, but the general narrative ignores the fact that many southern cities are just as (if not more than) diverse/cosmopolitan than many northern cities. Compare this racial distribution map of Boston to that of Houston, for example. www.onein3boston.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/RacialMap.jpgswamplot.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/houston-racial-graphic.jpgInstitutionalized racism has not existed in the American South for nearly 50 years. (Non-institutionalized racism continues to exist everywhere, and probably always will to some degree.) Although it is important not to forget the past, we should not pretend that we're still living in it. Okay, I'll shut up about voter ID now. Let's get back on track with the "King of Bain" video. nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/11/here-it-isthe-full-romneybain-documentary
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 13, 2012 9:50:16 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 13, 2012 11:00:01 GMT -5
Yeesh. Today's Coffee Talk topic.... "Pollsters: More or less abominably evil than lawyers?" Discuss. Don't get me wrong. I am a writer and editor by profession, so I understand the importance of choosing the right words (obviously, I do not work for Mitt Romney ). It's just that my preferred method for choosing the right words usually doesn't involve licking my finger and holding it up to the wind.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 13, 2012 11:34:29 GMT -5
Yeesh. Today's Coffee Talk topic.... "Pollsters: More or less abominably evil than lawyers?" Discuss. Don't get me wrong. I am a writer and editor by profession, so I understand the importance of choosing the right words (obviously, I do not work for Mitt Romney ). It's just that my preferred method for choosing the right words usually doesn't involve licking my finger and holding it up to the wind. Couldn't agree more. I'm not a huge fan of PR in general, but I understand the need for it and have no problem with it if the 'spin' is still truthful. Pollsters like Luntz however are the complete opposite - how to use language to manipulate people into thinking and doing what you want, whether or not your efforts are dishonest. About as unhealthy for democracy as anything I can think of.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by thebin on Jan 13, 2012 12:33:15 GMT -5
This is pretty much the same phenomena that occurred when Democrats stopped using the word "liberal" to describe themselves in the early 1990s and Republicans with "neo-cons" in the last decade. Some words just get nailed so hard by a small group so often that people who don't even know what they mean start associating negative connotations to them as a result. I'd venture that maybe 5% of people who toss out a "Neo-con" could tell you (accurately) what it means. Ditto the molestation of the word "liberal" which is a word that should be proudly used by anyone who is familiar with the 18th century Enlightenment use of the word.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Jan 16, 2012 8:55:23 GMT -5
Huntsman is also a credible candidate, but his candidacy is in its last throes. Bingo. Looks like Huntsman is dropping out (according to CNN). Too bad -- probably the only GOP candidate I would have supported.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 16, 2012 9:20:28 GMT -5
2012 has arrived and the President's Redeception campaign is in full effect.
Seems that after three full years of assiduously avoiding church (so as not to disturb real worshippers) Barry, Mickie and the girls have made their triumphant return . Something tells me we will be hearing something about moral imperatives in the upcoming campaign and Barry will cloak himself in religion to push it home.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 16, 2012 10:03:59 GMT -5
In a carefully worded statement, Jon Huntsman said the following "After deep thought and prayer and after consultation with my family, I have decided to drop out of the race and endorse my fellow Mormon, Mitt Romney, the man I have been trashing over the last several months. I ask both of my supporters to join in backing Mr. Romney."
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 16, 2012 10:43:39 GMT -5
Does anyone understand how Colbert is planning on running for President of South Carolina? If he's ineligible for the primary, is he planning on running third party?
Watched his spot with George Stephanopolous - terrible interview because Stephanopolous actually thought he'd break character. Combined with his moderation performance, someone really needs to teach Stephanopolous how to ask some good questions.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 16, 2012 11:00:23 GMT -5
Something tells me we will be hearing something about moral imperatives in the upcoming campaign and Barry will cloak himself in religion to push it home. I don't see that happening. Not his style. Besides, the Republicans have that move trademarked.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 16, 2012 11:31:27 GMT -5
There was a recent article that explained Huntsman's candidacy well: he is planning for 2016.
There is a long tradition in the GOP of the "next in line" candidate, going as far back as Taft in the early 1900's but followed by the lines of Dewey, Nixon, Goldwater, Reagan, Bush, Dole, and McCain. Romney is a by-product of this as well.
In 2008, Romney's campaign cratered after NH when McCain had overwhelming logistical support in the Super Tuesday primaries that Mitt could not match. Four years later, Romney would be ready and Romney knew McCain wouldn't be back if he lost in 2008. Same with Huntsman.
If Mitt is not elected in 2012, he's not back in 2016. Ron Paul has already said he's not running at 80, Gingrich would be 73. Perry and Bachmann would not return. While the conservatives squabble over whether to anoint Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie or Rand Paul, Huntsman would already be building the base for the next four years. It's a formula that worked for Romney, McCain, and others before him.
If Mitt is elected, I suspect there's a Cabinet role ahead for Huntsman in exchange for his support. The two are not friends and for Huntsman to throw his meager support to Mitt, suggests some sort of detente.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 16, 2012 19:34:27 GMT -5
Re the reference about Huntsman building a base for the next four years, the fallacy is that Huntsman is on the leftward wing of the party. To me it would make more sense for this mantle to fall to Santorum or the party to look to Paul Ryan as he positions himself as the spokesman for fiscal responsibility. Just my opinion and, to say the least, I've been wrong a few times in my life.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 16, 2012 20:41:11 GMT -5
Re the reference about Huntsman building a base for the next four years, the fallacy is that Huntsman is on the leftward wing of the party. So was Romney. And McCain.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 17, 2012 11:21:05 GMT -5
Re the reference about Huntsman building a base for the next four years, the fallacy is that Huntsman is on the leftward wing of the party. So was Romney. And McCain. And Dole. And Dole and McCain had what in common? Both lost.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 17, 2012 11:56:01 GMT -5
So was Romney. And McCain. And Dole. And Dole and McCain had what in common? Both lost. Sorry Ed, you're a critic of Obama, so you're just dumb. www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek.html
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 17, 2012 12:22:22 GMT -5
Well, at least Sullivan isn't writing about Sarah Palin's daughters and baby anymore (for now at least).
Not sure if this is an improvement, but it's slightly less nauseating than that creepshow.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 17, 2012 14:14:10 GMT -5
And Dole. And Dole and McCain had what in common? Both lost. So? DFW was talking about who was going to be the favorite for a possible 2016 primary. Your argument that Dole won the primary in 1996 after losing in 1988 furthers his point. In 3 out of the 4 last primaries, the winner finished 2nd in the previous primary cycle. Unless we think Ron Paul is going to win a possible 2016 primary, I think he's got a point about Huntsman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 14:40:03 GMT -5
Well, at least Sullivan isn't writing about Sarah Palin's daughters and baby anymore (for now at least). Not sure if this is an improvement, but it's slightly less nauseating than that creepshow. Does anyone even read Newsweek anymore? That aside, what's up with people "suspending" their campaigns (Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman)? I don't think that anyone is harboring any illusions that they will be back in the race at any point. Why not just withdraw, or officially end your campaign?
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jan 17, 2012 14:45:43 GMT -5
Suspending = Can still raise money to pay off campaign expenses. Works better if you are a sitting Senator or Governor or in some other position to help donors.
|
|