ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
4-9 hours lines have been documented. This is suppression
What a joke....it's insulting to people who have actually been suppressed when long lines are even considered as "suppression". An absolute insult.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
What a joke....it's insulting to people who have actually been suppressed when long lines are even considered as "suppression". An absolute insult.
Are you unemployed? Making someone who has to work for a living/attend classes wait 4+ hours to vote is suppression.
I know I don't have time to wait 4 hours to vote. Id be on my next task for the day after 1 or 2 hours.
2 hours is not just a 'long line'. Get real, especially if you are forced to stand for that amount of time, which some people are incapable of.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The Patriots have been overachievers the past two years. It doesn't have the talent to compensate for injuries, and it wins so much because it puts in 99% effort in the regular season and plays with terrific schemes to mask its deficiencies.
But in the playoffs a good team at 99% will not beat emotional, talented teams that play at 100%. It's what happened against the Giants in 2011 and the Ravens in 2012.
Last edited by DocHoliday; 11-06-2012 at 05:09 PM..
As I have posted in the other thread ... the lines are mostly result of the referendum on the ballots. Areas where voters are not as educated are seeing longer vote times.
That's no excuse however ... if an election has a heavy amount of referendum then obviously there should be more machines to accommodate the increased and long questions.
I must admit ... i don't read them ... I just put the line for yes ... whatever ... usually they employ more people so it's needed for my state.
Are you unemployed? Making someone who has to work for a living/attend classes wait 4+ hours to vote is suppression.
I know I don't have time to wait 4 hours to vote. Id be on my next task for the day after 1 or 2 hours.
2 hours is not just a 'long line'. Get real, especially if you are forced to stand for that amount of time, which some people are incapable of.
First off, if there were voting lines of 4-9 hours as "reported" than it would have had to have taken place during early voting. Soooooo...... they can vote another day if there are 9 hour lines (which I'm sure didn't actually exist).
That isn't "suppression". An example of suppression would be when guys with weapons stand in front of your polling place and threaten you if you try to vote.
What you're talking about is...inconvenience.
But that's what the progressives love to do...change the argument by changing the language:
Same old pattern of the misuse of language to change the argument. Typical... and insulting to those who have actually been supppressed when trying to assert their rights.
Last edited by RI Patriots fan; 11-06-2012 at 05:32 PM..
Yes, brilliant. Do you honestly think that one state could ransom all the others? Oh wait....Ohio....calling Ohio?
So now instead of a big state holding us hostage, a medium size state like Ohio matters and California is pretty much meaningless.
How many people in non-swing states don't vote because they know their candidate has no chance? I have voted since 1984 and only once has my choice for Presidential candidate won. That's 28 years...one winner. Why bother going to vote?
But if my vote counted in a national tally, my vote would actually mean something and it would encourage me to vote. Now, I'm wondering why I bother.
I think that you miss the point. The EC was not devised because any state may be split evenly over 2 candidates and then be the deciding state in any one election. It was devised so one region could not dominate over regional interest.
I will again say it was brilliant. So many things the Founders came up with were brilliant, and I'm still in awe of how brilliant these people of 200+ years ago really were.
Now we can all point to things that, living in their times were wrong, but that is what the "more perfect" part of the Constitution is all about.
I think that you miss the point. The EC was not devised because any state may be split evenly over 2 candidates and then be the deciding state in any one election. It was devised so one region could not dominate over regional interest.
I will again say it was brilliant. So many things the Founders came up with were brilliant, and I'm still in awe of how brilliant these people of 200+ years ago really were.
Now we can all point to things that, living in their times were wrong, but that is what the "more perfect" part of the Constitution is all about.
On a separate matter:
I see another thread getting hijacked- again.
Actually, you said "state"....but regardless, state or region you haven't addressed my point...how many people don't vote because they live in states that are never swing states?
Regional interest....do you mean the FL, VA, OH, WI, IA, CO, NV, NH region? I think they seem to be doing pretty well.
Last edited by RI Patriots fan; 11-06-2012 at 06:10 PM..
How many people in non-swing states don't vote because they know their candidate has no chance? I have voted since 1984 and only once has my choice for Presidential candidate won. That's 28 years...one winner. Why bother going to vote?
But if my vote counted in a national tally, my vote would actually mean something and it would encourage me to vote. Now, I'm wondering why I bother.
Things change, Bro. It wasn't long ago that NH was solid blue, now... notsomuch. And Maine? Electors can now split, depending on the tally for each district. And, hell yeah! swing states matter...
but every vote matters, don't ya see?
Imagine Rhode Island determining the outcome. Not outside the realm of possibility. So don't complain.
Never complain!
Things change, Bro. It wasn't long ago that NH was solid blue, now... notsomuch. And Maine? Electors can now split, depending on the tally for each district. And, hell yeah! swing states matter...
but every vote matters, don't ya see?
Imagine Rhode Island determining the outcome. Not outside the realm of possibility. So don't complain.
Never complain!
We need Voter ID laws too. Just as important as making sure people can register and vote, is ensuring that people who do so, are who we thought they were.
BTW, we're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic.
Oh, so people don't vote in the U.S.?
Will you ever stop with this tired old bumper sticker? It's meaningless. No democracy in the world uses direct plebiscite to decide every issue. They're all representative democracies.
Representative democracy IS a form of republic.
So unless your claim is that the emperor chooses the electors, and they then govern in Vienna subject to the emperor's approval (or somesuch,) I don't think this "it's not a democracy it's a republic" meme means anything.
I do think, however, that the National Popular Vote movement will get a big shot in the arm from a few red states that didn't get their way this time 'round, especially if the failed Rmoney campaign stays close, or <gasp> wins the popular vote.