2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426711]

That being said, fingerprints need not be used, you could also have the person submit their own photos, by mail with the application for the I'd, and the photos could be taken anywhere at their personal convenience, just like is done with passport applications. The person who votes still needs to look like the person in the photos.[/QUOTE]Yep. Your process is way better than driving into the DMV and passport photos can be taken at any 711 way out in the boonies. IALOTFLMAO. Monger on Member Idiot, Toymann.

Ps. You are such a champion of the poor unwashed living in BUMF*CK Wyoming. What is the colour of the sky in your world dude. LMAO!

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;426712]What exactly are you claiming I am making up in my post? There is nothing in the US Constitution that states a government issued identification card is necessary to utilize a citizen's right to vote and there is nothing in the constitution mandating acquisition of a federal identity document. The document the founding fathers authored prioritized states right for sure, but as I am sure you must know the original document has been amended twenty seven times. In fact, subsequent amendments have repeatedly rolled back the states' attempts to disenfranchise citizens and furthermore have expanded the vote to groups not authorized in the original document (see 15th. 17th. 19th. 24th, and 26th amendments, all of which EXPAND enfranchisement and / or strike down states' attempts to disenfranchise poor / minority groups).[/QUOTE]You stated in your original post. "Voting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens."

I replied that it's a fallacy to quote the constitution as having no law re: photo ID to vote. To repeat myself, the constitution specifically referred all aspects for how any individual state wants to legislate the process of voting to the states themselves, not as a power or right from the federal government. Hence you saying since the constitution doesn't say one must have photo ID it must therefore be somehow illegal to require ID documentation or the basis for why the US has no mandatory national identification is just plain wrong and ascribing as a constitutional right something that is clearly not. Either you're making that up or clearly not reading the pretty short document that is the constitution and / or the limited number of amendments.

Repeating again. ALL aspects for qualifying, registering, and processing of your right to vote was left specifically by the constitution to the states. No amendment has changed that from the original non-amended constitution.

Which party is causing the drive for voter Identity Cards? So in fact, all past presidential elections are tainted, right? And the call for national Identity card is always hammered down, by whom?

I know that voting is madatory in some countries. So let's get serious and make it a felony if you don't vote?

[QUOTE=Mpexy; 426722]You stated in your original post."Voting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens."

I replied that it's a fallacy to quote the constitution as having no law re: photo I'd to vote. To repeat myself, the constitution specifically referred all aspects for how any individual state wants to legislate the process of voting to the states themselves, not as a power or right from the federal government. Hence you saying since the constitution doesn't say one must have photo I'd it must therefore be somehow illegal to require I'd documentation or the basis for why the US has no mandatory national identification is just plain wrong and ascribing as a constitutional right something that is clearly not. Either you're making that up or clearly not reading the pretty short document that is the constitution and / or the limited number of amendments.

Repeating again. ALL aspects for qualifying, registering, and processing of your right to vote was left specifically by the constitution to the states. No amendment has changed that from the original non-amended constitution.[/QUOTE]Clearly you are the one who did not bother to read the amendments to the constitution that I listed. I conceded that according to the unamended, original document ALL aspects for qualifying, registering and processing the right to vote were held by the states. However, the federal government decided that the way (southern) states were administering the voting process was unacceptable and thus AMENDED the constitution to change this, beginning with the 15th amendment, which made the (southern) states' practice of disenfranchisment because of race / creed / etc illegal. The 17th amendment took away the power of the state governments to choose their senators and gave it directly to the citizens of the individual states. Prior to the 19th amendment, some states allowed women's suffrage whereas others did not; the amendment took away the states' power to decide and made it a federal mandate. The 24th amendment made poll taxes illegal, which were commonly used by (southern) states as a method of disenfranchising poor minorities. It is quite clear that in this day and age in the United States that it is the federal and not the state governments that have the ultimate say over the administration of voting rights. Which brings me to my original point: as it has been well established by the federal government that voting is a right for ALL US citizens (except felons) , and there is no federal mandate requiring acquisition of a identity document to exercise one's constitutionally guaranteed rights, no identification document is necessary to vote.

[QUOTE=Toymann;426720]You are a genius dude!

Yep. Your process is way better than driving into the DMV and passport photos can be taken at any 711 way out in the boonies. IALOTFLMAO. Monger on Member Idiot Toymann.[/QUOTE]

OK. So we've settled on Member Idiot Toyboy as your preferred identity. Seems pretty appropriate although, I take it you'll still answer to imbecile Toyboy as well. In any case, I understand why, from your perspective way down there, you consider me to be a genius - and although I'm humbled by your praise, I think the evaluation results more from the vastly lesser intellect you bring to the comparison, relatively speaking.

In any case, to spare you more future humiliation, I've decided to take advantage of this forum's quite useful ignore list feature with respect to you, Toyboy - and for those other posters who wish to do the same but were not aware of it's existence, it can be found under the settings area in the red bar at the very top of the page. BTW, I'm happy to engage in ongoing dialog with anyone who disagrees with me, but is not so disagreeable while doing so as our friend Toyboy.

Don't go beating up on Toymann too much, he's one of those wealthy "job creators".

After the elections, I will be happy to collect my night at Madaho's thanks to Toymann's generosity and our bet on the election results. When I predicted that the wienie Willard would lose, Toymann rabidly disagreed. We shall see. Of course my dislike of the wienie Willard wasn't because he is a "conservative" (is he?) , but rather because he is a member of the Mormon cult.

Since Jackson put Toymann on my ignore list, I can only hope that one of his friends (does he still have any on the forum?), will remind him of our bet.

[QUOTE=Esten;426753]Don't go beating up on Toymann too much, he's one of those wealthy "job creators".[/QUOTE]Give him a break. We all have similar thoughts we just don't verbalize them. I have a lifesize inflatable doll that I call Esten. When I get mad at Democrats I yell obscenities and pummel her with my fists for 5 or 10 minutes. I feel much better afterwards. Toymann's sarcasm maybe is similar therapy for him. Some of it's funny, it could be on Saturday Night Live.

Just kidding Esten, about the doll. I do appreciate you and the other Democrats here. I think you've been good sports as the majority here are conservative so you get piled on a lot. It's good to have the opportunity to go back and forth with people with other views, even when they're mistaken in their beliefs. And maybe there's a little bit of a Romney Mormon in me. I want to convert you. I want you and other non-Libertarians to find the true path to peace and prosperity. Only then can I be content. And continue to enjoy my 15% capital gains.

I have a bet with Esten that you all know about. What is all this hosreshit about a bet with David33. Sometimes I just can't help but wonder WTF goes on with some of you on this board. I have never even met David33, and have not seen a post from him in many months. Talk about silly banter. As far as you go Sid. More senile banter from the old mongers home. Be careful what you ask for Sid. I have photos of some of your hatian beauties. Maybe I should start a poll. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=David_33; 426755]After the elections, I will be happy to collect my night at Madaho's thanks to Toymann's generosity and our bet on the election results. When I predicted that the wienie Willard would lose, Toymann rabidly disagreed. We shall see. Of course my dislike of the wienie Willard wasn't because he is a "conservative" (is he?) , but rather because he is a member of the Mormon cult.

Since Jackson put Toymann on my ignore list, I can only hope that one of his friends (does he still have any on the forum?) , will remind him of our bet.[/QUOTE]The bet was on the table, and David33 then went on a sabbatical. True colors are emerging as the finish line appears.

For the loyal opposition find below a brief history lesson regarding all the latest liberal ranting.

First.

Go to Google and check out all the Texas Department of Public Safety offices around the great state of Texas. NOBODY lives 100 miles or even close to it from a TDPS driver's license office. Total BS from my liberal friends on photo I'd. Also check out all the stories out from the 'north', 'south', 'east' and 'west' about voting fraud. Can a liberal say ACORN?

Second.

Jim Crow Laws, you need to go back and study history from the south and you will find it was the Democrats who perpetrated these laws and not the Party of Lincoln ie Republicans. Can my liberal friends say Senator Robert Byrd of the KKK?

Third.

All the ranting about constitutional amendments, the fact is it takes 2/3's of the House and the Senate to pass the legislation for an amendment and the legislation bypasses the President. It must then be ratified by 3/4's of the individual state's legislatures before the constitution is amended. Seems some of our liberal brothers forgot their Civic's classes.

They further state most of these amendments were to correct the wicked South's behavior, well lets take a look.

Amendments.

We all know about the Bill of Rights ie the first 10 amendments, but did you know the 27th Amendment was proffered at the same time as the first 10 but was not ratified until May 7, 1992? It prohibited a sitting congress from voting itself a pay raise. Of course they got around this by making the raises automatic!

11th Amendment

Feb 7, 1795, limited the powers of the Supreme Court regarding citizens and state litigation.

12th Amendment.

June 15, 1804, forced the Electoral College to select a President and Vice President.

13th Amendment.

Dec 6, 1865, abolished slavery – FYI it was passed AFTER the Civil Way ended.

14th Amendment.

July 9, 1868, provided former slaves with citizenship, again after the Civil War ended.

15th Amendment.

Feb 3, 1870. Closed a loophole in the voting rights of former slaves created by the 13th Amendment.

16th Amendment.

Feb 3, 1913, result of a Supreme Court case involving the definitions of direct and indirect taxation.

17th Amendment.

April 8, 1913, abolished election of Senators by state legislatures and provide for direct public election.

18th Amendment.

Jan 16, 1919, Prohibition.

19th Amendment.

August 18, 1920, provided women the right to vote, we freed the slaves, made them citizens and gave them the right to vote 55 years before we let the chica's vote.

20th Amendment.

Jan 23, 1933, shortened the 'lame duck' period between elections and taking office for Congressional elect and the President elect.

21st Amendment.

December 5, 1933, repealed the 18th Amendment.

22nd Amendment.

Feb 27, 1951, limited the president to two 4 year terms.

23rd Amendment.

March 29, 1961, granted the right to vote in national elections to the citizens of Washington DC.

24th Amendment.

Jan 23, 1964, eliminated the 'Poll Tax', which was prevalent in both the North and the South.

25th Amendment.

Feb 10, 1967, established the order of succession upon the death of a president.

26th Amendment.

July 1, 1971, provide the vote in all elections to those 18 years and order due to a Supreme Court case where Oregon disagreed with lowering the age to 18.

27th Amendment

Already talked about this one, only took a couple of hundred years to get it ratified.

Now what were our liberal friends saying about how all or most of the Amendments were designed to reign in the Wicked South?

So ends the history lesson.

Doppelganger

So Doppelganger, would you care to name a single, solitary election that Acorn caused to be decided fraudulently?

Secondly, I already pointed out - way back in post #1410 of this thread - that the vast majority of segregationists in the South were Democrats, until LBJ got passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Richard Nixon developed the Southern Strategy in response, to pander to those previously Democrat Racists who felt abandoned by LBJ making sure black folks could actually vote. As a result, the overwhelming majority of those racists, including Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and George Wallace being the most noteworthy, switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the mid-1960s. The reason that Robert Byrd did not, was that he renounced his prior racist background, became a supporter of the Civil Rights agenda of the late 1960s and beyond. The fact is, the Republicans of 2012 are attempting to use EXACTLY the same tactics that the Democrat racists of the 1950s and 1960s used to disenfranchise blacks, to attempt presently to disenfranchise the poor, as well as blacks and hispanics. But this is hardly surprising, as those very racist Democrats switched parties in the 1960s and the views that they espoused became REPUBLICAN party orthodoxy from the late 1960s onward.

And thirdly, presently, Conservative Republicans are the opposition party in the USA Although, given Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh's public statements that their agenda during the past 4 years was to insure that Barack Obama, and by extension, the Nation for whom he represents ALL of the citizenry of, FAILS, it would be a misnomer of the worst sort to call the Republicans, the LOYAL opposition. Particularly when the disloyalty to the nation as a whole in working aggressively for the failure of the nation during this time has never been so glaring from one party since the Civil War, and in fact, the Republican party has driven the nation to the brink of credit default, and sabotaged the USA credit rating in the process.

If you are going to try to give a history lesson, it behooves you not to cherry-pick and misrepresent your facts in that lesson, lest your lesson be recognized for the biased hogwash that it is.

I agree it sounds like a totally reasonable thing to require all voters to present some form of ID meeting certain standards.

But look at the context in which the push for stricter voter ID requirements is happening:
- In the absence of data showing a significant issue with voter fraud, the underlying premise.
- In the presence of data showing that stricter requirements favor Republicans.
- In the lead-up to a very important election for Republicans, some of whom have said the most important thing is to win the election.
- Predominantly in red or Republican-controlled states.

It does appear there is a dual motive here. If there were any doubt, just ask Pennsylvania Speaker of the House, Republican Mike Turzai. Earlier this year, he said the state's new voter ID law would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania".

GOP Turzai : Voter ID allows Romney to win PA
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87NN5sdqNt8[/url]

In Los Angeles we have a simpler system. We divide the county into precincts of about 1000 voters. Each precinct has a polling place that is manned by your neighbors. Everybody knows everybody anyway. No need for IDs. In fact, one time I had moved out of the precinct but had not changed my registration. People pointed me out and said I was not living there anymore. They let me vote so I guess I am guilty of voter fraud. I signed a book saying I lived at an address where I no longer lived.

Of course, many Californians are moving to Texas where they can gain comfort in presenting their identifications at the polling place. LOL. I think they are mostly Conservatives. This is called the Big Sort in demographic research. All the Conservatives live with fellow Conservatives and all the Liberals live among Liberals. Everyone wants to live with their own kind these days. America is becoming provincial. Nobody is cosmopolitan anymore. Cosmopolitan is nothing but a hotel in Las Vegas these days.

Hey remember that Wrigley's gum commercial.... Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun

Toymann, instead of one hot Madahos chica you could make it two.

And what better than a threesome, than a threesome paid for by two sorry-ass liberals? You'll be grinning from ear to ear. I'll pay for the Rubia, David will pay for the Morocha.

You should make the same bet with David. After all, it's in the bag, right? Even Romney said so.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426784] As a result, the overwhelming majority of those racists, including Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and George Wallace being the most noteworthy, switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the mid-1960s. [snip][/QUOTE]Wallace's final term as a Democrat Governor was 1983–1987, when did become a republican? He ran for President as an Independent not as a Republican. Sorry but I believe Gov. Wallace like Robert Byrd was a life long Democrat.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426784] Secondly, I already pointed out - way back in post #1410 of this thread - that the vast majority of segregationists in the South were Democrats, until LBJ got passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Richard Nixon developed the Southern Strategy in response, to pander to those previously Democrat Racists who felt abandoned by LBJ making sure black folks could actually vote.[/QUOTE]LBJ was all in favor of black folks voting, several times. Dead people too. As I already pointed out in post something or the other, my father's cousin was one of the people who helped your hero LBJ steal an election, in which 20, 000 dead people voted. He's an excellent example of why we shouldn't worry about voter fraud with your modern, post-segregationist Democrats, or Democratics (with an ics), or whatever it is that you prefer to be called.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426784] Particularly when the disloyalty to the nation as a whole in working aggressively for the failure of the nation during this time has never been so glaring from one party since the Civil War, and in fact, the Republican party has driven the nation to the brink of credit default, and sabotaged the USA credit rating in the process.[/QUOTE]Respectfully, Member #2041, what planet are you on? Yes Bush added way too much to the national debt. But Obama did more. Obama has put the country on a trajectory for bankruptcy. I already know you're going to come back with tales of obstructionist Republicans, that it takes two to tango. But if Obama were providing real leadership, the way Clinton did with Republican congressmen, there would have already been a debt/spending/tax deal.

[QUOTE=Esten; 426787]Hey remember that Wrigley's gum commercial. Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun.

Toymann, instead of one hot Madahos chica you could make it two.

And what better than a threesome, than a threesome paid for by two sorry-ass liberals? You'll be grinning from ear to ear. I'll pay for the Rubia, David will pay for the Morocha.

You should make the same bet with David. After all, it's in the bag, right? Even Romney said so.[/QUOTE]You are missing one key factor Esten. I actually like you, it's been a while since that beer at newport though. We negotiated our terms and I am totally fine with that. Furthermore, I know you'll be good for it. As far as that idiot david33 goes. That's a whole different story. After 6 months of no posts somehow he suddenly appears and claims we have a bet! Give me a break! The pm system works just fine and if he actually wanted to take me up on my bet "on the table", I would not be hearing about it second hand today. BlackShirt is just trying to stir me up and I am not taking the bait. From him or you! LOL. I only bet with folks I have met and I don't know david33 from a hole in the ground. My research indicates he is just a TL wannabe from Columbia. Wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire right in front of me. Shame on you BlackShirt, you were raised better than that! LOL. It's all good. Heading to Argentina tomorrow, hit the ground running Friday! My posts will get quite docile once I'm down a few quarts! Mongering on Esten and BS. Traveling Toymann

[QUOTE=Esten;426753]Don't go beating up on Toymann too much, he's one of those wealthy "job creators".[/QUOTE]And I am getting quite tired of hearing that I need to pay my share day in day out by the Idiot in Chief. I guess north of of 33% on average federal the past 5 years just wasn't enough and then of course there was also the lovely various state taxes that were also paid. Funny, the money that I used to fund my businesses had previously also been taxed at near that rate. Sounds like TL's rusty trombone without all the fun. When I left the socialist country I was born in my last years wages were taxed at 55% federal and state combined, but hey, healthcare was free. As long as you lived long enough, in the line up, to get it! Be careful what you ask for Esten. You just might get it some day. Happy mongering all! Not paying his share Toymann

Ps. Wish obomanation would listen to that loon Pelosi. Lol

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426784]So Doppelganger, would you care to name a single, solitary election that Acorn caused to be decided fraudulently?

Secondly, I already pointed out. Way back in post #1410 of this thread. That the vast majority of segregationists in the South were Democrats, until LBJ got passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Richard Nixon developed the Southern Strategy in response, to pander to those previously Democrat Racists who felt abandoned by LBJ making sure black folks could actually vote. As a result, the overwhelming majority of those racists, including Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and George Wallace being the most noteworthy, switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the mid-1960s. The reason that Robert Byrd did not, was that he renounced his prior racist background, became a supporter of the Civil Rights agenda of the late 1960s and beyond. The fact is, the Republicans of 2012 are attempting to use EXACTLY the same tactics that the Democrat racists of the 1950s and 1960s used to disenfranchise blacks, to attempt presently to disenfranchise the poor, as well as blacks and hispanics. But this is hardly surprising, as those very racist Democrats switched parties in the 1960s and the views that they espoused became REPUBLICAN party orthodoxy from the late 1960s onward.

And thirdly, presently, Conservative Republicans are the opposition party in the USA Although, given Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh's public statements that their agenda during the past 4 years was to insure that Barack Obama, and by extension, the Nation for whom he represents ALL of the citizenry of, FAILS, it would be a misnomer of the worst sort to call the Republicans, the LOYAL opposition. Particularly when the disloyalty to the nation as a whole in working aggressively for the failure of the nation during this time has never been so glaring from one party since the Civil War, and in fact, the Republican party has driven the nation to the brink of credit default, and sabotaged the USA credit rating in the process.

If you are going to try to give a history lesson, it behooves you not to cherry-pick and misrepresent your facts in that lesson, lest your lesson be recognized for the biased hogwash that it is.[/QUOTE]This dude is a total loon. Good luck though. Mongering on. Toymann

[QUOTE=Tiny12;426792]Obama has put the country on a trajectory for bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]Actually, that was G. W. Bush. Obama has steered us somewhat away from it, although not completely, for sure. And in any case, if you're in denial about the complete obstructionism in the Senate that Obama has faced from DAY 1 of his Presidency, you are already immune to any sort of reasoned argument.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426797]Actually, that was G. W. Bush. Obama has steered us somewhat away from it, although not completely, for sure. And in any case, if you're in denial about the complete obstructionism in the Senate that Obama has faced from DAY 1 of his Presidency, you are already immune to any sort of reasoned argument.[/QUOTE]I already responded to your post in my post that you excerpted the quote from. But, DAY 1 of his presidency? Come on, get real. That's when he had a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate, if you include Sanders and Lieberman, not to mention Biden as the tie-breaker. And there were 257 Democrats to 178 Republicans in the House.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426797]Actually, that was G. W. Bush. Obama has steered us somewhat away from it, although not completely, for sure. And in any case, if you're in denial about the complete obstructionism in the Senate that Obama has faced from DAY 1 of his Presidency, you are already immune to any sort of reasoned argument.[/QUOTE]I believe the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2007 and they kept control until 2011 when they lost the house. So during the last two years of Bush's term and the first two years of Obama the Democrats had control of congress.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;426799]I believe the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2007 and they kept control until 2011 when they lost the house. So during the last two years of Bush's term and the first two years of Obama the Democrats had control of congress.[/QUOTE]Nope, incorrect. When the opposition uses fillibuster as a matter of routine, it requires 60 seats to control the Senate so as to pass any legislation into law, and at no point in Obama's Presidency did the Democrats hold 60 Senate seats, which is what is required to overcome a fillibuster and get a bill passed. The claim that the Democrats controlled the Senate during the first 2 years of Obama's Presidency is simply not true. And the fact is, Leiberman was never a reliable member of the Democratic caucus during the Obama Presidency, and he specifically endorsed McCain for the Presidency. Being able to get a bill passed by the House, without being able to get 60 votes in the Senate, means nothing. Just ask Paul Ryan.

Lieberman caucuses with Democrats, he was a Democrat, and he's Harry Reid's biggest financial supporter in the Senate. So, again, with the socialist Bernie Sanders, Obama had a 60% fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a 59% majority in the House. That's about as good as it gets for a U.S. president.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;426802]Lieberman caucuses with Democrats, he was a Democrat, and he's Harry Reid's biggest financial supporter in the Senate. So, again, with the socialist Bernie Sanders, Obama had a 60% fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a 59% majority in the House. That's about as good as it gets for a U.S. president.[/QUOTE]Lehman largely did not vote with the Democrats from 2009 on, so clearly he was no longer a Democrat. The claim that the Democrats controlled the Senate is simply factually false.

Claiming that he was because he used to be, is simply misleading, and incorrect.

Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, and the head of a Union (Actor's equity). But I would never claim that he was a Democrat as President, nor would I ever claim he was a pro-union President. Leiberman is no different - he changed his allegiances over time, and he had a particular animus toward Obama due to a view that Obama was a lesser ally to Israel than McCain was.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426804]Lehman largely did not vote with the Democrats from 2009 on, so clearly he was no longer a Democrat. The claim that the Democrats controlled the Senate is simply factually false.

Claiming that he was because he used to be, is simply misleading, and incorrect.

Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, and the head of a Union (Actor's equity). But I would never claim that he was a Democrat as President, nor would I ever claim he was a pro-union President. Leiberman is no different. He changed his allegiances over time, and he had a particular animus toward Obama due to a view that Obama was a lesser ally to Israel than McCain was.[/QUOTE]You are simply incorrect. The fact is, the Democrats DID have a filibuster proof majority during the first few years of Obama's administration, which is EXACTLY how Obamacare was able to be passed by the Senate (60-39, one abstention, exactly along party lines including the two "independents") The filibuster proof majority ended upon Ted Kennedy's death and Republican Scott Brown's victory in the special election to replace TK.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426800]Nope, incorrect. When the opposition uses fillibuster as a matter of routine, it requires 60 seats to control the Senate so as to pass any legislation into law, and at no point in Obama's Presidency did the Democrats hold 60 Senate seats, which is what is required to overcome a fillibuster and get a bill passed. The claim that the Democrats controlled the Senate during the first 2 years of Obama's Presidency is simply not true. And the fact is, Leiberman was never a reliable member of the Democratic caucus during the Obama Presidency, and he specifically endorsed McCain for the Presidency. Being able to get a bill passed by the House, without being able to get 60 votes in the Senate, means nothing. Just ask Paul Ryan.[/QUOTE]Reliable or not Leiberman is a member of the Democratic caucus, and he is a Democrat who was elected as an Independent. The Democrats have had a majority in the Senate since 2007 and still do today, they also had a majority in the House of Representatives from Jan 2007 until Jan 2011. You don't need a 'supermajority' to be in control. You make it sound like the Republicans are the only one who would ever filibuster, give me a break.

How many times has either party had a supermajority?

If you don't think having the majority puts you in control, then who's in control now?

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426800]Being able to get a bill passed by the House, without being able to get 60 votes in the Senate, means nothing. Just ask Paul Ryan.[/QUOTE]Who decides what legislation comes to the floor for a vote? The party 'in control', or in this case it's the most powerful [b]Mormon [/b]politician in the country Majority Leader Harry Reid.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;426805]You are simply incorrect. The fact is, the Democrats DID have a filibuster proof majority during the first few years of Obama's administration, which is EXACTLY how Obamacare was able to be passed by the Senate (60-39, one abstention, exactly along party lines including the two "independents") The filibuster proof majority ended upon Ted Kennedy's death and Republican Scott Brown's victory in the special election to replace TK.[/QUOTE]The fact that Lieberman voted with the Democrats on one important piece of Legislation did not make him a reliable member of the Democratic majority. He was not a Democrat in 2009, and is not one now. He voted with them on the Healthcare act. But his vote could not be counted upon in any number of contentious pieces of legislation. And in actual fact, Lieberman forced the elimination of the public option as a condition of his vote. To please his benefactors in the Connecticut-based Insurance industry. There is a difference between having the votes on one bill, and having control of the seat. The Democrats had the votes on that piece of legislation, but they did not control 60 seats in the Senate at any time during Obama's Presidency, and Lieberman leveraged his position in a manner no actual Democrat could have or would have in providing that final vote.

And to answer Punter 127's question - nobody controls the Senate now, and nobody has controlled it during the Obama Presidency - which is why, in such a divisive climate, nothing gets passed in the Senate.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426809]

And to answer Punter 127's question. Nobody controls the Senate now, and nobody has controlled it during the Obama Presidency. Which is why, in such a divisive climate, nothing gets passed in the Senate. [snip][/QUOTE]Wrong, You can't pass bills if the Leader won't bring them to the floor for a vote. So who's the obstructionist now?

Spain is about to implode, will Franco re-emerge?

[QUOTE=Esten;426787]I'll pay for the Rubia, David will pay for the Morocha.[/QUOTE]No problem, I always pay my debts.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;426810]Wrong, You can't pass bills if the Leader won't bring them to the floor for a vote. So who's the obstructionist now?[/QUOTE]Any bill that has 60 votes in support will be brought to the floor irrespective of who has a majority of seats. The Senate's rules work that way. No bill will get 60 votes in the Senate as it is presently constituted, so it's a moot point.

The Charts will show, in a 5 year period under Bush there were many Fraudulent Voters.

The Red is the Number of people and the percentage.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426816]Any bill that has 60 votes in support will be brought to the floor irrespective of who has a majority of seats. The Senate's rules work that way. No bill will get 60 votes in the Senate as it is presently constituted, so it's a moot point.[/QUOTE]Are you saying only bills with 60 votes get voted on? If so how does anything ever get voted down?

[QUOTE=Punter 127;426820]Are you saying only bills with 60 votes get voted on? If so how does anything ever get voted down?[/QUOTE]No, bills that the majority party supports get brought to the floor, but fillibustered if they lack 60 votes. Whereas bills that the minority party supports don't get brought to the floor without 60 votes. In essence, there is no difference, as neither party can get a bill passed without 60 votes, so long as the minority party consistently uses the fillibuster. All of this is why nothing gets done in the Senate when everything is hyperpartisan as is presently the case. Net net, neither party has control of the Senate sufficient to get a bill passed without significant crossing of the aisle, and only ultra-rare bipartisan bills get passed.

Member 2041 if you wish to see voter fraud in action you need look no further than the 1998 Minnesota Senatorial fight between Democrat Al Franken and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman.

ACORN was very active in Minnesota as well as many other states during this period, between ACORN's registration efforts and the Minnesota Democratic machines utter failure to correctly recount the votes somehow destroying original documents, retaining multiple copies of destroyed original documents, permitting ineligible felons to vote and the list goes on which resulted in Franken beating Coleman. Even the courts concluded there was no way to reach a 'real' total. They did not even address ACORN's voter's fraud, nor were they interested in doing so.

Regarding ACORN, how many of their state officers ended up on trial and convicted of voter fraud, many! Democrats are never interested in curbing fraud as the deem it to work in their favor.

Regarding voting in the Senate, Harry Ried has refused to bring legislation passed in the House to the Senate floor blocking both debate and any vote. I suspect he is worried some Democrats might jump ship and join the Republicans to pass legislation otherwise he would let the bills reach the floor for debate since neither side has 60 members. It makes your 60 vote argument moot. Also tax bills only need a majority to pass not 60 votes, which is why I suspect Roberts ruled ObamaCare a TAX.

The fact is, courts validated the legitimacy of Franken's victory over Coleman. You've still not shown any fraudulent national election result due to Acorn, nor anyone else in the past several decades in the USA.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;426824]Member 2041 if you wish to see voter fraud in action you need look no further than the 1998 Minnesota Senatorial fight between Democrat Al Franken and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman.[/QUOTE]