• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

randel said:
romney lost, Obama is president....time to move on, the country has bigger issues to take care of.
Click to expand...

Let's just foeget about the rigged elections in these precincts.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I agree with what he said - sounds fishy . . . I don't trust that outcome either.
Click to expand...

Think about this logically. If you are ****ing with teh vote total, you don't count the other guy as having 0 votes. If you do that, all it takes is a single person to claim that he lives in the district and voted Romney to call your entire vote tally into question. If you have the area filled with frauds, you could maybe get rid of a certain percentage of votes, but taking them all away would be stupid. For example, if you wanted to steal some money out of a register without anyone noticing, would you take every last penny in there or would you take an amount that no one would notice or an amount that could be chalked up to a counting error somewhere.

What Republican's are asking people to believe is that all of these districts eliminated every single Romney vote in their region, while hoping that no one that lives in those districts would question why there vote for Romney wasn't counted.

I know at my precinct here in Louisiana if they had tallied no votes for Obama, I would raise hell because I know 5 people including myself that voted Obama. If they had claimed 99% votes for Romney though, I couldn't claim that I know for sure that it is not right.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Think about this logically. If you are ****ing with teh vote total, you don't count the other guy as having 0 votes. If you do that, all it takes is a single person to claim that he lives in the district and voted Romney to call your entire vote tally into question. If you have the area filled with frauds, you could maybe get rid of a certain percentage of votes, but taking them all away would be stupid. For example, if you wanted to steal some money out of a register without anyone noticing, would you take every last penny in there or would you take an amount that no one would notice or an amount that could be chalked up to a counting error somewhere.

What Republican's are asking people to believe is that all of these districts eliminated every single Romney vote in their region, while hoping that no one that lives in those districts would question why there vote for Romney wasn't counted.

I know at my precinct here in Louisiana if they had tallied no votes for Obama, I would raise hell because I know 5 people including myself that voted Obama. If they had claimed 99% votes for Romney though, I couldn't claim that I know for sure that it is not right.
Click to expand...

Would you be against a recount in those districts?
 
head of joaquin said:
The real issue is why ANYBODY voted for Romney? I can see Paris Hilton's chihuahua maybe doing so, but nobody who is sentient. Well, maybe that explains it.
Click to expand...

I have a neighbor whom I KNOW voted for Romney. Probably the only one on our street. Also, in the entire neighborhood (and it's a very dense 50's development type style of housing) there was but one lawn sign for Romney and THAT got blown away by SS Sandy!!!
 
Bronson said:
Would you be against a recount in those districts?
Click to expand...

Nope. Recount what ever you want. As long as it's done in the open in a fair manner.

Unlike many conservatives, I want everyone that is eligible and wants to vote to have their vote counted and accurately, regardless of their race and who they might vote for.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Nope. Recount what ever you want. As long as it's done in the open in a fair manner.

Unlike many conservatives, I want everyone that is eligible and wants to vote to have their vote counted and accurately, regardless of their race and who they might vote for.
Click to expand...

Funny, that's precisely what the republicans call for time and again - "I want everyone that is eligible and wants to vote to have their vote counted and accurately". Yet you speak as if you disagree with them. Which is it?
 
clownboy said:
Funny, that's precisely what the republicans call for time and again - "I want everyone that is eligible and wants to vote to have their vote counted and accurately". Yet you speak as if you disagree with them. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Sorry that is not what many of them want and that is fact. That's why in places with Republican leaders you had people waiting in line to vote til midnight on election night.

Obama wins Florida; Final electoral vote count 332 to 206 - CBS News
In Miami-Dade, for instance, so many people were in line at 7 p.m. in certain precincts that some didn't vote until after midnight. The headache has prompted many in the Sunshine State to criticize Gov. Rick Scott for refusing to extend early voting hours.
Click to expand...

That's also why many changes in the voting had to be overturned by the courts. They were found to be unfair in many instances.

Ohio asks Supreme Court to overturn early-voting ruling - The Washington Post
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit sided with state Democrats and President Obama’s reelection campaign last week and said the state had not shown why in-person voting during the Saturday-Monday period should be offered to only one group of voters.
Click to expand...

Court overturns Ohio early voting restrictions in win for Democrats | Reuters

(Reuters) - A federal judge issued a ruling on Friday that overturned early voting restrictions in Ohio, handing a victory to President Barack Obama's campaign, which had argued that the restrictions disproportionately hurt Democrats.
Click to expand...



etc. etc. etc.

You can not deny reality.

And do not try to make the claim that Republicans were doing this to restrict voter fraud. If you want to do that, don't pass the law months before an election. Pass the law now so that people can become aware of what has changed and you can work out the logistics better, etc.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't agree. We've had a strong economy with a high tax rate, and poor one (like this one) with and low tax rate, and the reverse. There seems to be no real connection between taxes and the economy (I've linked such research before). Tax cuts also don't create jobs (there's research on that as well).
Click to expand...

It is not so much as higher/lower = stronger/weaker economy, but what the tax is on does influence how investments are made, how people conduct their business and lives. Of course it is only one of the forces so the effects are interposed on (and even somewhat determined by) the flow of the economy. But to suggest there is no influence is naive, and NOT supported by the data.
And yes, removing people from the work force hurts, but also opens up positions. Here in Iowa, we have more jobs than people, though most are not high paying.
Click to expand...
“Opening up positions” to those that would not otherwise be hired [because assumedly they are less able substitutes] is a negative for the economy. If the army was composed entirely of idiots and invalids that were otherwise near unemployable, that would be ok. But that isn’t the case..until they come home damaged by the war, which is the other side of the matter. Now you have taken someone that would have been able bodied wealth creator and hurt them so that they are far less able. :(

The historical data and shown this over and over, being in a war screws up your economy. If you win relatively cleanly there is a bounce back effect, especially if it gained some economic advantage (via loot, political influence, market access etc.). But during the war and in period immediately following it the economy suffers. Swords or plowshares!
 
apdst said:
Let's just foeget about the rigged elections in these precincts.
Click to expand...

First, you have to PROVE that they were rigged, which you and the other conspiracy theorists cannot.
 
Dwight said:
It is not so much as higher/lower = stronger/weaker economy, but what the tax is on does influence how investments are made, how people conduct their business and lives. Of course it is only one of the forces so the effects are interposed on (and even somewhat determined by) the flow of the economy. But to suggest there is no influence is naive, and NOT supported by the data.
Click to expand...

I try very hard not to deal in absolutes. Instead I say they don't control the economy, meaning they don't influence enough to make the economy either good or bad. Other factors have more power tip the balance.

“Opening up positions” to those that would not otherwise be hired [because assumedly they are less able substitutes] is a negative for the economy. If the army was composed entirely of idiots and invalids that were otherwise near unemployable, that would be ok. But that isn’t the case..until they come home damaged by the war, which is the other side of the matter. Now you have taken someone that would have been able bodied wealth creator and hurt them so that they are far less able. :(

The historical data and shown this over and over, being in a war screws up your economy. If you win relatively cleanly there is a bounce back effect, especially if it gained some economic advantage (via loot, political influence, market access etc.). But during the war and in period immediately following it the economy suffers. Swords or plowshares!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is any significant difference. Too often we assume that the most qualified is hired, when in fact qualifications are often not as strong a factor as we think, and the difference between one and another is often small to on existent. Often a friend is picked, or someone someone knew, networking. Anyone who has done hiring knows you get many equally qualified resumes. The difference in who you pick is usually decided by more subjective criteria.

And I think we came out of WWII quite well as I recall. In any case, we choose to go to war. it wasn't forced on us. And it was supported by the people, no matter how misguided that support was. Changing presidents won't fix that.
 
TheNextEra said:
First, you have to PROVE that they were rigged, which you and the other conspiracy theorists cannot.
Click to expand...

Problems, Black Panthers surface at Pa. polling places - Washington Times

Problems at the polls surfaced early Tuesday in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, with Republican election monitors being turned away from polling places and members of the New Black Panther Party appearing at voting sites in Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania Republican officials said 75 election monitors from the party were turned away from polling places in heavily Democratic sections of Philadelphia Tuesday, but a judge has ordered them reinstated.
Click to expand...
 
TheNextEra said:
First, you have to PROVE that they were rigged, which you and the other conspiracy theorists cannot.
Click to expand...

It's a statitical impossibility. Nothimg else to prove. Only partisan hacks of the highest order would deny election rigging here.
 
apdst said:
It's a statitical impossibility. Nothimg else to prove. Only partisan hacks of the highest order would deny election rigging here.
Click to expand...

No it isn't statistically impossible, you just have sour grapes and are whining. Romneybots can be such ******s that their candidate lost.
 
If you know Philadelphia, you wouldn't be one bit surprised that Romney got zilch votes. It's all demographics. I'd be surprised if Romney got ANY votes in those districts and if he won in any of them, then I'd think the whole thing was rigged.

I've lived near Phillie nearly my whole life and worked there for lots of years. If you did; you would also be shocked with Romney GETTING votes.

Recount all you want, but the results will be the same.

Neocons, teabaggers, GOP, please all take your loss like a man, not a mouse; as the cartoon said.
 
TheNextEra said:
No it isn't statistically impossible, you just have sour grapes and are whining. Romneybots can be such ******s that their candidate lost.
Click to expand...

Pointing out election fraud is not whining, it's fraud, no different than someone burning down your house. But I guess you would not whine about that, now would you?
 
Born Free said:
Pointing out election fraud is not whining, it's fraud, no different than someone burning down your house. But I guess you would not whine about that, now would you?
Click to expand...

As soon as you point PROOF of voter fraud, just because your candidate sucks does not mean voter fraud.
 
Uzidoesit said:
If you know Philadelphia, you wouldn't be one bit surprised that Romney got zilch votes. It's all demographics. I'd be surprised if Romney got ANY votes in those districts and if he won in any of them, then I'd think the whole thing was rigged.

I've lived near Phillie nearly my whole life and worked there for lots of years. If you did; you would also be shocked with Romney GETTING votes.

Recount all you want, but the results will be the same.

Neocons, teabaggers, GOP, please all take your loss like a man, not a mouse; as the cartoon said.
Click to expand...

What was the percent of blacks that voted for Obama?

As for taking the loss like a man, you mean like you liberals did when Boregore lost to Bush.
 
Last edited:
Not that it is going to change the results of the election but it would seem at least one person in all of those precincts would have voted for Romney by accident.
 
TheNextEra said:
As soon as you point PROOF of voter fraud, just because your candidate sucks does not mean voter fraud.
Click to expand...

I see your house in ashes so stop whining, get over it. You left the stove on, someone did no burn your house down.
 
The waiver program is just a temporary fix until 2014:

21, 2011 4:18 pm ET


During the health care repeal debate on the House floor, several congressmen cited the HHS waiver program as a reason to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Many of the congressmen claimed that it only protects the "politically connected" and President Obama's friends.

This unsubstantiated claim distorts the real truth: that many small businesses will benefit from the temporary waiver program and that the program is open to more than just the "politically connected." In addition, the waiver program is a temporary fix until 2014,

when the expansion of PPACA will provide coverage to those who would have trouble receiving health care coverage due to their type of employment. If Republicans successfully repeal PPACA, they would put over 1 million people who would have received waivers at risk of losing their health insurance.[/B]
Click to expand...

GOP Distorts HHS Waiver Program During Repeal Debate | Political Correction
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom