Obama Likely To Win Another Presidential Term: Gallup Poll

[chuckd]

Its fact. But Republican's don't believe in facts.

The facts are that Americans need an ID to take a plane, rent a room, vote in a union election, get into the Democratic convention and many other things. It is ridiculous to suggest that someone should be able to vote without proving who they are.

This is an almost impossible thing for most of us to believe, that someone would not have ID. Yet, I understand there are many elderly, and most of all many poor people who don't in America. Kind of like I guess there are lots of people who keep money under their mattress to this day.

Those poor and elderly are Obama votes, it's that simple. And, most of those poor are minorities and black I think. Easy as pie.

The fact is that poor people don't fly planes, rent rooms, vote in union elections, go to conventions etc, Because they are poor. They also don't spend 20+ dollars in an ID. Its a wonder the US lasted so long WITHOUT people having to prove who they were, in elections since 1787 lol. The other side also as some merit t if you take off your red state colored glasses. That being said - I think states should provide free photo ID, and then require the ID to be shown - problem solved.

All states that require voter ID do provide free photo IDs.

I would further anticipate that the only action any person too poor or incapable of traveling to the nearest ID office has to do is call the nearest Democratic party office and free transport will be provided to get that voter ID. If ACORN was still in business they might not even have to leave their home. This is called "community organizing".

[somtumlion]

Romney's group bought companies and loaded them up with debt. Took all their money, and let them go bankrupt, while running away with the cash. That is not business, its larceny.

[Ulysses G.]

But when there is power at stake - then I guess not. The words 'stinking hypocracy' come to mind on this issue.

"Stinking hypocricy" would apply more to those who are willing to foment voter fraud in order to increase their share of the vote, yet would not let these same people into their own convention or office buildings without presenting valid ID.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

So you are saying Fox News is not mainstream?

The term mainstream media usually refers to how the majority of commercial and taxpayer funded news reporting and commentary present a strong liberal bias, while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information. So, no, Fox News is is not considered mainstream media.

[somtumlion]

But when there is power at stake - then I guess not. The words 'stinking hypocracy' come to mind on this issue.

"Stinking hypocricy" would apply more to those who are willing to put up with voter fraud in order to increase their share of the vote, yet would not let these same people into their own convention or offices without valid ID.

If they states provide them free, I have no problem with the requirement.

[samran]

But when there is power at stake - then I guess not. The words 'stinking hypocracy' come to mind on this issue.

"Stinking hypocricy" would apply more to those who are willing to put up with voter fraud in order to increase their share of the vote, yet would not let these same people into their own convention or offices without valid ID.

So lets just be clear on this - you have no problems with government enforced mandates forcing people to register themselves with the government?

Yes or No?

Edited November 2, 2012 by samran

[somtumlion]

So you are saying Fox News is not mainstream?

The term mainstream media usually refers to how the majority of commercial and taxpayer funded news reporting and commentary present a strong liberal bias, while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information. So, no, Fox News is is not considered mainstream media.

No it doesn't - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_media

[jayboy]

So by that reasoning, we don't need a Secretary of State to understand foreign policy, we need a President who does. And, Romney has sure shown his adeptness in that area.

As president, on a State visit to the UK, Obama talked over the God Save the Queen and bungled a formal toast to Queen Elizabeth and then he gave her an iPod loaded with videos and photos of himself as an official gift. His wife hugged the Queen even though she is not supposed to be touched. When British officials offered to let Mr. Obama to hang onto the bust of Churchill in the White House for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks." Obama has cocked it up a lot worse with England than Romney even though the mainstream media chooses not to highlight it.

Cocked it up? Is it your contention that the President has damaged the relationship between the UK and the US?

No and neither has Romney. Both made a silly Faux Pas or two and that should be the end of it. However, only Romney's are repeated over and over again by the mainstream media.

Probably best not not pontificate on British attitudes if, as is quite clear, you don't understand them.In terms of impact Obama is overwhelmingly more popular than Romney among Brits of all kinds.A recent poll put Obama at 91% approval rating in the UK.The incident you mention of Michelle upsetting royal protocol is a falsehood - I have seen no British account of it suggesting any offence was taken (only in the crazed US right wing media).In fact on a subsequent visit the Queen personally gave Michelle and the kids a guided tour of Buckingham Palace - unheard of and confirming HM's fondness for the Obama family.The Churchill bust incident could have been better handled on both sides but is now forgotten.On the other hand Romney's stupidity and lack of tact on his UK visit made a very poor impact.There's a more general truth.If you like and respect someone you overlook his small errors and mistakes.If you think someone is a tosser you don't.

[samran]

Probably best not not pontificate on British attitudes if, as is quite clear, you don't understand them.In terms of impact Obama is overwhelmingly more popular than Romney among Brits of all kinds.A recent poll put Obama at 91% approval rating in the UK.The incident you mention of Michelle upsetting royal protocol is a falsehood - I have seen no British account of it suggesting any offence was taken (only in the crazed US right wing media).In fact on a subsequent visit the Queen personally gave Michelle and the kids a guided tour of Buckingham Palace - unheard of and confirming HM's fondness for the Obama family.The Churchill bust incident could have been better handled on both sides but is now forgotten.On the other hand Romney's stupidity and lack of tact on his UK visit made a very poor impact.There's a more general truth.If you like and respect someone you overlook his small errors and mistakes.If you think someone is a tosser you don't.

jayboy - you have to stop reading my posts - I fear I am having a bad influence on you. I mean, you've dropped the word 'tosser'. Rather un-you is it not?

[jayboy]

Probably best not not pontificate on British attitudes if, as is quite clear, you don't understand them.In terms of impact Obama is overwhelmingly more popular than Romney among Brits of all kinds.A recent poll put Obama at 91% approval rating in the UK.The incident you mention of Michelle upsetting royal protocol is a falsehood - I have seen no British account of it suggesting any offence was taken (only in the crazed US right wing media).In fact on a subsequent visit the Queen personally gave Michelle and the kids a guided tour of Buckingham Palace - unheard of and confirming HM's fondness for the Obama family.The Churchill bust incident could have been better handled on both sides but is now forgotten.On the other hand Romney's stupidity and lack of tact on his UK visit made a very poor impact.There's a more general truth.If you like and respect someone you overlook his small errors and mistakes.If you think someone is a tosser you don't.

jayboy - you have to stop reading my posts - I fear I am having a bad influence on you. I mean, you've dropped the word 'tosser'. Rather un-you is it not?

It was an inexplicable lapse.Nevertheless in dealing with someone like Romney one must hunt around for an appropriate epithet.

[SteeleJoe]

So you are saying Fox News is not mainstream?

The term mainstream media usually refers to how the majority of commercial and taxpayer funded news reporting and commentary present a strong liberal bias, while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information. So, no, Fox News is is not considered mainstream media.

When you say "not considered" you mean of course "not considered by those whose political stance is often so supported by denials of facts that are unpalatable to them and who like to whinge about some sort of liberal conspiracy to hide the truth"...right?

No Fox is not Mainstream Media because it does not present a strong liberal bias, while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information. Instead, its reporting and commentary present a strong conservative bias, while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[somtumlion]

Las Vegas makes money for a reason -

NATE SILVER: Obama's Odds Of Winning Have Now Hit 79%

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-election-odds-2012-10-c

[chuckd]

Isn't there a simple principal here that trancends everything else?

That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance.

And I thought that given that Republicans were keen to take people back to a time where peoples words were their bonds, and combined with the fact that Republicans hate government intrusion in any way, that the idea of government not forcing people to have idea would be one that is welcome by those on the right.

But when there is power at stake - then I guess not. The words 'stinking hypocracy' come to mind on this issue.

You defeat your argument with this statement:

"That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance."

With some 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing inside the US, how does a poll worker identify a US citizen from an illegal alien without some form of voter ID?

You will recall the US is a multi-colored nation so how does this poll worker determine, simply by looking at someone, that they are a citizen?

Most of you liberals are overlooking the obvious. Voter ID isn't about the poor, black or elderly...it is about the 11 million!

[samran]

Probably best not not pontificate on British attitudes if, as is quite clear, you don't understand them.In terms of impact Obama is overwhelmingly more popular than Romney among Brits of all kinds.A recent poll put Obama at 91% approval rating in the UK.The incident you mention of Michelle upsetting royal protocol is a falsehood - I have seen no British account of it suggesting any offence was taken (only in the crazed US right wing media).In fact on a subsequent visit the Queen personally gave Michelle and the kids a guided tour of Buckingham Palace - unheard of and confirming HM's fondness for the Obama family.The Churchill bust incident could have been better handled on both sides but is now forgotten.On the other hand Romney's stupidity and lack of tact on his UK visit made a very poor impact.There's a more general truth.If you like and respect someone you overlook his small errors and mistakes.If you think someone is a tosser you don't.

jayboy - you have to stop reading my posts - I fear I am having a bad influence on you. I mean, you've dropped the word 'tosser'. Rather un-you is it not?

It was an inexplicable lapse.Nevertheless in dealing with someone like Romney one must hunt around for an appropriate epithet.

Say no more...

[keemapoot]

Isn't there a simple principal here that trancends everything else?

That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance.

And I thought that given that Republicans were keen to take people back to a time where peoples words were their bonds, and combined with the fact that Republicans hate government intrusion in any way, that the idea of government not forcing people to have idea would be one that is welcome by those on the right.

But when there is power at stake - then I guess not. The words 'stinking hypocracy' come to mind on this issue.

You defeat your argument with this statement:

"That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance."

With some 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing inside the US, how does a poll worker identify a US citizen from an illegal alien without some form of voter ID?

You will recall the US is a multi-colored nation so how does this poll worker determine, simply by looking at someone, that they are a citizen?

Most of you liberals are overlooking the obvious. Voter ID isn't about the poor, black or elderly...it is about the 11 million!

Yours is the first reasonable explanation so far. However, isn't it convenient that the Republicans push for such a thing only at the 11th hour when they know it is impossible for those Obama voters to comply. Strange that.

[chuckd]

Romney's group bought companies and loaded them up with debt. Took all their money, and let them go bankrupt, while running away with the cash. That is not business, its larceny.

Obama's administration has been involved with venture capitalism by their Energy Department loan guarantees.

The only difference is they are loading up the failing energy companies with taxpayer cash, not private capital. This might also be considered larceny

[samran]

Isn't there a simple principal here that trancends everything else?

That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance.

And I thought that given that Republicans were keen to take people back to a time where peoples words were their bonds, and combined with the fact that Republicans hate government intrusion in any way, that the idea of government not forcing people to have idea would be one that is welcome by those on the right.

But when there is power at stake - then I guess not. The words 'stinking hypocracy' come to mind on this issue.

You defeat your argument with this statement:

"That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance."

With some 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing inside the US, how does a poll worker identify a US citizen from an illegal alien without some form of voter ID?

You will recall the US is a multi-colored nation so how does this poll worker determine, simply by looking at someone, that they are a citizen?

Most of you liberals are overlooking the obvious. Voter ID isn't about the poor, black or elderly...it is about the 11 million!

I would rather think that is a border protection issue - or a failure of. Funny how you don't mention the millions of legal non-citizens. Surely they are a problem as well? Or are you just looking for an easy strawman?

What I'm asking is if people with a fairly right wing perspective of the world are prepared to contemplate mandated government enforcement to register your identity with them. Simple question which should be fairly easy for those on the right to answer, with a resounding 'NO!' (or HELL NO!!!!).

(BTW good try on labelling me a 'liberal'. Far from the case on a variety of issues - but certainly a good right of centre attempt at an insult as you are going to get).

[somtumlion]

Romney's group bought companies and loaded them up with debt. Took all their money, and let them go bankrupt, while running away with the cash. That is not business, its larceny.

Obama's administration has been involved with venture capitalism by their Energy Department loan guarantees.

The only difference is they are loading up the failing energy companies with taxpayer cash, not private capital. This might also be considered larceny

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-25-2012/picking-winners---losers

Funny and true. See - you can have both! lol

[SteeleJoe]

Isn't there a simple principal here that trancends everything else?

That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance.

And I thought that given that Republicans were keen to take people back to a time where peoples words were their bonds, and combined with the fact that Republicans hate government intrusion in any way, that the idea of government not forcing people to have idea would be one that is welcome by those on the right.

But when there is power at stake - then I guess not. The words 'stinking hypocracy' come to mind on this issue.

You defeat your argument with this statement:

"That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance."

With some 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing inside the US, how does a poll worker identify a US citizen from an illegal alien without some form of voter ID?

You will recall the US is a multi-colored nation so how does this poll worker determine, simply by looking at someone, that they are a citizen?

Most of you liberals are overlooking the obvious. Voter ID isn't about the poor, black or elderly...it is about the 11 million!

I would rather think that is a border protection issue - or a failure of. Funny how you don't mention the millions of legal non-citizens. Surely they are a problem as well? Or are you just looking for an easy strawman?

What I'm asking is if people with a fairly right wing perspective of the world are prepared to contemplate mandated government enforcement to register your identity with them. Simple question which should be fairly easy for those on the right to answer, with a resounding 'NO!' (or HELL NO!!!!).

(BTW good try on labelling me a 'liberal'. Far from the case on a variety of issues - but certainly a good right of centre attempt at an insult as you are going to get).

Can you imagine in any other context -- say a Democrat POTUS in his second term: the Feds mandating a national ID card. We'd be hearing about FEMA camps and all sorts of impending evils faster than you can say "UN/Marxist plot".

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[samran]

Isn't there a simple principal here that trancends everything else?

That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance.

And I thought that given that Republicans were keen to take people back to a time where peoples words were their bonds, and combined with the fact that Republicans hate government intrusion in any way, that the idea of government not forcing people to have idea would be one that is welcome by those on the right.

But when there is power at stake - then I guess not. The words 'stinking hypocracy' come to mind on this issue.

You defeat your argument with this statement:

"That is that all citizens should be able to vote without let or hinderance."

With some 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing inside the US, how does a poll worker identify a US citizen from an illegal alien without some form of voter ID?

You will recall the US is a multi-colored nation so how does this poll worker determine, simply by looking at someone, that they are a citizen?

Most of you liberals are overlooking the obvious. Voter ID isn't about the poor, black or elderly...it is about the 11 million!

I would rather think that is a border protection issue - or a failure of. Funny how you don't mention the millions of legal non-citizens. Surely they are a problem as well? Or are you just looking for an easy strawman?

What I'm asking is if people with a fairly right wing perspective of the world are prepared to contemplate mandated government enforcement to register your identity with them. Simple question which should be fairly easy for those on the right to answer, with a resounding 'NO!' (or HELL NO!!!!).

(BTW good try on labelling me a 'liberal'. Far from the case on a variety of issues - but certainly a good right of centre attempt at an insult as you are going to get).

Can you imagine in any other context -- say a Democrat POTUS in his second term: the Feds mandating a national ID card. We'd be hearing about FEMA camps and all sorts of impending evils faster than you can say "UN/Marxist plot".

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Given that they were talking about 'death panels' when they were trying to roll out health insurance to people who didn't have it, you can be sure that the language will be even more vitriolic.

[mania]

I'm not suggesting, I'm asserting that these people don't have ID, for whatever reason, and Republicans know that.

Your asserting wrongly

None survive in the US without ID

Even poor folks have ID otherwise they could never apply for food stamps,

welfare,free medical etc. A Social Security Card is not an ID. they need to prove

even to get assistance that they are US citizens.

Anyone a hair above homeless needs an ID to cash a check, travel even interstate

in many cases by train,bus etc these days.

I am rather surprised at how many fight the notion of an ID being required.

Would you want your bank account available to anyone without an proper ID?

Neither should the US Government

Edited November 2, 2012 by mania

[samran]

I'm not suggesting, I'm asserting that these people don't have ID, for whatever reason, and Republicans know that.

Your asserting wrongly

None survive in the US without ID

Even poor folks have ID otherwise they could never apply for food stamps,

welfare,free medical etc. A Social Security Card is not an ID. they need to prove

even to get assistance that they are US citizens.

Anyone a hair above homeless needs an ID to cash a check, travel even interstate

in many cases by train,bus etc these days.

I am rather surprised at how many fight the notion of an ID being required.

Would you want your bank account available to anyone without an proper ID?

Neither should the US Government

why not go the whole hog and have government ID for all citizens?

[somtumlion]

I'm not suggesting, I'm asserting that these people don't have ID, for whatever reason, and Republicans know that.

Your asserting wrongly

None survive in the US without ID

Even poor folks have ID otherwise they could never apply for food stamps,

welfare,free medical etc. A Social Security Card is not an ID. they need to prove

even to get assistance that they are US citizens.

Anyone a hair above homeless needs an ID to cash a check, travel even interstate

in many cases by train,bus etc these days.

I am rather surprised at how many fight the notion of an ID being required.

Would you want your bank account available to anyone without an proper ID?

Neither should the US Government

Your "none" turns out to be about 11% FYI - http://www.economist.com/node/21529061

[SteeleJoe]

I'm not suggesting, I'm asserting that these people don't have ID, for whatever reason, and Republicans know that.

Your asserting wrongly

None survive in the US without ID

Even poor folks have ID otherwise they could never apply for food stamps,

welfare,free medical etc. A Social Security Card is not an ID. they need to prove

even to get assistance that they are US citizens.

Anyone a hair above homeless needs an ID to cash a check, travel even interstate

in many cases by train,bus etc these days.

I am rather surprised at how many fight the notion of an ID being required.

Would you want your bank account available to anyone without an proper ID?

Neither should the US Government

Your "none" turns out to be about 11% FYI - http://www.economist.com/node/21529061

Well, roughly 35 million people -- that's practically none...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Baloo22]

The truth is the number of people showing up at the polls voting illegally or impersonating legal voters is practically ZERO. But it makes a great red herring for the republican party to promote voter suppression of likely democratic party voters.

Like this: Judge fines ACORN $5,000 for voter registration scheme

"District Judge Donald Mosley was confined by statute to fine only the corporation, which pleaded guilty in April to one count of felony compensation for registration of voters.

Mosley said that if there were an individual standing before him, and not a corporation, that person would have been given a 10-year prison sentence, "and I wouldn't have thought twice about it.""

or this: Dead people voted and registered to vote, watchdog group finds; hundreds of deceased still on rolls

"To date, the group has researched 1% of Maryland’s registered voting population in five counties — Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Montgomery, Prince George’s and Wicomico. Its findings have revealed 1,500 deceased still on active voter registration rolls, nearly 700 duplicate voter registrations — many out of state — and several hundred voters who listed a vacant lot or business address as their residential address."

Or this: Did You Know There are Voter Fraud Convictions and Prosecutions in 46 States?

Google ACORN and "voter fraud" for much more evidence!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth is that voter ID and other efforts by our citizens to increase the integrity of our voting mechanisms and process are valid and have nothing to do with "voter suppression", "racism" or any of the other crooked code words that the left-wingers throw around. ACORN (before it fell apart) and other associated left-wing groups have made voter fraud a major part of their election efforts. And the blatently false accusations of "voter intimidation" and "racism" are nothing more than desperate smokescreens to divert attentions from their voter fraud efforts.

[Credo]

I'm not suggesting, I'm asserting that these people don't have ID, for whatever reason, and Republicans know that.

Your asserting wrongly

None survive in the US without ID

Even poor folks have ID otherwise they could never apply for food stamps,

welfare,free medical etc. A Social Security Card is not an ID. they need to prove

even to get assistance that they are US citizens.

Anyone a hair above homeless needs an ID to cash a check, travel even interstate

in many cases by train,bus etc these days.

I am rather surprised at how many fight the notion of an ID being required.

Would you want your bank account available to anyone without an proper ID?

Neither should the US Government

why not go the whole hog and have government ID for all citizens?

Oh, no that is different--that is Big Brother; that is government infringing on people. Denying someone a constitutional right is OK, as long as it is the 'other' party that will lose.

[mania]

why not go the whole hog and have government ID for all citizens?

Basically it exists

You are born you are given a birth certificate.

You later obtain a social security number by the time you reach working age.

If not sooner if your parents requesting social services.

You are under the impression each US citizen does not have govt ID

Your wrong.

As others have said State ID's with picture are basically free.

You bring in the two things I mentioned above since you must have them

and your done.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just commenting on the US for sport & does not

live in the US nor are they citizens.

[SteeleJoe]

why not go the whole hog and have government ID for all citizens?

Basically it exists

You are born you are given a birth certificate.

You later obtain a social security number by the time you reach working age.

If not sooner if your parents requesting social services.

You are under the impression each US citizen does not have govt ID

Your wrong.

As others have said State ID's with picture are basically free.

You bring in the two things I mentioned above since you must have them

and your done.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just commenting on the US for sport & does not

live in the US nor are they citizens.

A Social Security card does not function as an ID -- as you well know (nor could it without a photo etc). And OPTIONAL state ID is quite different from mandatory Federal ID, no?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited November 2, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[keemapoot]

It's been a long time since I lived in the States, but yes, as far as I know usually everyone ends up with a Social Security card, but not valid as ID, and unless they start legally driving, they never get a real ID. But as Mania claims, this amounts to "none" or as steelejoe and somtum pointed out, about 35 million, same as none.

[mania]

Your "none" turns out to be about 11% FYI - http://www.economist.com/node/21529061

Well, roughly 35 million people -- that's practically none...

Let me address both since their both silly.

this kind of article is like me saying I lost my ID in a flood.

I am too lazy to go to the Department of Records & get another

based on my Birth Certificate which they have

and my Social Security number which again they have.

The frenzy over minutia like this is mind boggling.

Again I ask, Would you allow your bank to allow access to YOUR

funds by folks who claim they have no ID?

If not

Then please do not ask our government to allow access to benefits/rights

without any either.

Again this is a non-issue just another distraction.

This is why US politics have become a Lakorn

none may speak to the real issues just the minutia.