2012 Elections in the USA

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.