Presidential Election Fraud is Everywhere, Be Very Careful

[85 MAX-fan]

im canadian, and from an outsiders point of view... its not looking good either way, but i am watching the debate. i gotta admit Obama is definately sounding like hes got a better, organized answer/ agenda than Romney.

His responses are out classing Romney... i did watch the debate last weekend as well and i think the entire issue is money. period. The USA NEEDS to rebuild from within, get everyone working at home, buy at home. Quit buying overseas cause its cheaper. support at home. help pay that dirty debt down.

ive also noticed they use the words security threat, war, terrorism. You guys are your own worst enemy. that discussion is enciting fear at home. i dont get it. using fear to control the masses is about as close to brainwashing as it gets.

my uneducated opinion... Obama is the best bet by the looks of these debates, but only slightly. I believe the economy struggles are slightly due to him, but MOSTLY brought on by the Bush years and their policies, HE WAS AN UTTER FAILURE. the snowball was already rolling down the mountain when Obama got there. its affected the world. what can you say?

im an outsider looking in. my economy is tied to yours loosely. im watching cause im concerned how this is going to affect us.

i encourage open dialogue and hope to get a little education out of this thread.

ive said it before, ive got some lawnchairs pointed south with some stiff whiskey ready to watch the impending circus. feel free to join me guys...

peace,
evan...

You do realize that "Bush" didn't create the budget or allocate spending? That was our congress. Its how our government functions.
How can you say the snowball was already running down hill when the last four years created more debt than the previous 8? Bush aint spending anything now. Our entitlements DWARF military spending.....

 

[Rollie]

I'm not voting for any American president that would bow to the Sheik or ruler of any other country or nation , ever ! Most especially a Muslim nation who wants us to be subservient to their religion.

Bo has attempted to take the U.S. of A. down the his path of socialism , marxism and communism since the day he took office. 98 % of everything he has done stinks to high heaven of his anti-American background of teachers, muslims and mentors . Don't think for a second that , if elected , four more years of his class warfare , European type of economy , government controlled single payer mandatory healthcare , non-elected or held responsible czars with presidential cover through executive privledge , huge military cutbacks , won't reduce our ability to be free citizens with the opportunity to succeed on our own .

 

[CaptainKyle]

i'm not voting for any american president that would bow to the sheik or ruler of any other country or nation , ever ! Most especially a muslim nation who wants us to be subservient to their religion.

Bo has attempted to take the u.s. Of a. Down the his path of socialism , marxism and communism since the day he took office. 98 % of everything he has done stinks to high heaven of his anti-american background of teachers and mentors . Don't think for a second that , if elected , four more years of his class warfare , european type of economy , government controlled single payer mandatory healthcare , non-elected or held responsible czars with presidential cover through executive privledge , huge military cutbacks , won't reduce our ability to be free citizens with the opportunity to succeed on our own .

+ 1

 

[SpecOps13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jhx_2TqffE

This one is long....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y&feature=related

 

[Rollie]

This video is no surprise to most of my e-mail friends ! It shows a logical answer for a lot of questions this president has raised over the last four years that our trusted mainstream media NEVER asked or attempted to uncover.

 

[mr.maxx]

most of the wealth in america is held by a very small percentage of our population. are they gonna get what they want? you betcha.

as far as the middle class goes...they got screwed because they cant live within the boundaries of their paycheck.

i allways hear folks say.." i dont wanna pay taxes so poor folks can have food stamps and welfare." would you rather see starving people and children die on the streets? i dont think so.

ever wonder why an unskilled assmebly line worker makes 3 times as much $$ as they should? :rofl_200: and folks wonder why companies out source.
the president has very little clout without congressional support.....remember that when you blame him for everything.

our country didnt suddenly become ****** up/ it took decades .

 

[Klatuu]

I'm almost 100% Libertarian, which means I have an almost 100% chance of never having a viable Presidential candidate I can really get behind. Having said that, I am beyond disappointment that anyone, other than a few ideologues that are statistically guaranteed in any sample group at either end of the conventional left/right spectrum, that would vote for Obama given his record of performance.

It looks as if there is a preference cascade in progress away from Obama at this point. It's not fully verifiable, as polls do not, and cannot, reflect real-time data. Looking at polls is like trying determine the exact location of an animal you are tracking by looking at it's footprints. The animal could have sped up, turned around, or stopped, so all you can really tell is where it's been. Still, it looks like Obama is going to lose, but not by enough to indicate there are enough rational people left in this country to know that someone who has done a piss-poor job should not be allowed to continue in their employ.

Romney has a decent record at turning bad situations around, but you never really know about the challenger for an office he's never held. All we know for sure is that Obama has well-and-truly ****** the dog to the point it might have to be put down.

The thought that I find so sobering is what the closeness of the race portends about the electorate in the US. That there are enough citizens of this country who support Obama despite his abysmal record to make the race so close at this point bodes such future ill for my country as to completely overshadow any negative effect of any one who has or ever will occupy the White House. Whatever happens on Nov. 6th, Obama will be gone either on Jan 20, 2013, or four years after that. The country will survive him, even if it's worse for the wear. However, this country will have little future indeed with an electorate that put him there twice.

"A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes ? will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished." ? John Stuart Mill

 

[85 MAX-fan]

+ 1

+2

 

[ZackDaniels]

I'm not voting for any American president that would bow to the Sheik or ruler of any other country or nation , ever ! Most especially a Muslim nation who wants us to be subservient to their religion.

Bo has attempted to take the U.S. of A. down the his path of socialism , marxism and communism since the day he took office. 98 % of everything he has done stinks to high heaven of his anti-American background of teachers, muslims and mentors . Don't think for a second that , if elected , four more years of his class warfare , European type of economy , government controlled single payer mandatory healthcare , non-elected or held responsible czars with presidential cover through executive privledge , huge military cutbacks , won't reduce our ability to be free citizens with the opportunity to succeed on our own .

I've been over this before but Presidents follow foreign customs when in foreign lands. It's not specific to Obama or Democrats. Most recently there was President Bush kissing and holding hands with Saudi Prince Abdullah, but this goes back a long ways. Holding this rule pretty much disqualifies you from voting for anybody with foreign travels.

Teachers are anti-American now? Whaaaaaaat the fuuuuuuuuck.

His 'class warfare' is a push to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. They're costly and ineffective. I'm not sure what else you might mean by this?

Use of Executive privilege is still subject to a court ruling. Take some comfort in that if you feel it'll be used frequently. Obama has only used it once which is the fewest since Bush Sr. (also once) and still fewer than Reagan (three times) before him.

Military spending has increased every single year under Obama. It will continue to increase should he have a second term. The 'cuts' he's promising are not actual, but rather a reduction in the amount of annual increase to the military budget. The money Romney is talking about giving is on top of the already projected increase. Under both candidates military spending will increase - what they're debating is by how much it will. Nobody is talking about budget cuts as in actual reduction of funding, staff, equipment or programs.

What plans, actions, or policies have prevented you from succeeding, and succeeding in what? If nothing yet - what is looking like it will? I'm genuinely curious as I hear this all the time, but I haven't heard any examples of it from anybody.

By all means continue supporting Romney or maybe more accurately just not supporting Obama, but if these are your problems with Obama I hate to tell you they're not factually accurate.

 

[gamorg02]

I'm almost 100% Libertarian, which means I have an almost 100% chance of never having a viable Presidential candidate I can really get behind. Having said that, I am beyond disappointment that anyone, other than a few ideologues that are statistically guaranteed in any sample group at either end of the conventional left/right spectrum, that would vote for Obama given his record of performance.

It looks as if there is a preference cascade in progress away from Obama at this point. It's not fully verifiable, as polls do not, and cannot, reflect real-time data. Looking at polls is like trying determine the exact location of an animal you are tracking by looking at it's footprints. The animal could have sped up, turned around, or stopped, so all you can really tell is where it's been. Still, it looks like Obama is going to lose, but not by enough to indicate there are enough rational people left in this country to know that someone who has done a piss-poor job should not be allowed to continue in their employ.

Romney has a decent record at turning bad situations around, but you never really know about the challenger for an office he's never held. All we know for sure is that Obama has well-and-truly ****** the dog to the point it might have to be put down.

The thought that I find so sobering is what the closeness of the race portends about the electorate in the US. That there are enough citizens of this country who support Obama despite his abysmal record to make the race so close at this point bodes such future ill for my country as to completely overshadow any negative effect of any one who has or ever will occupy the White House. Whatever happens on Nov. 6th, Obama will be gone either on Jan 20, 2013, or four years after that. The country will survive him, even if it's worse for the wear. However, this country will have little future indeed with an electorate that put him there twice.

"A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes ? will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished." ? John Stuart Mill

speaking of libertarians, i really like gary johnson.

 

[85 MAX-fan]

i allways hear folks say.." i dont wanna pay taxes so poor folks can have food stamps and welfare." would you rather see starving people and children die on the streets? i dont think so.

You say this with the conviction of someone that believes it is an either or relationship; socialism/welfare or starving children in the streets.

Since the "war on poverty" began until now, the rate has remained relatively unchanged. In otherwords welfare programs have simple taken wealth from the taxpayers without changing the situation. There are other areas where the case can be made that welfare has actually increased the misery.
Our ghettos are full of people that have effectively shunned work and personal initiative to embrace sucking money out of the wallets of those that do work. They WANT to live this way. In reality the real tough guy gets up and goes to work every day.

 

[misiek93]

Romney might have a chance to win if he would actually reveal any part of his economic plan. Just saying what Obama hasn't done or how bad things will get if he is re-elected will not cut it. We get it, you think Obama is bringing this country down but what makes you think Romney will be any better? He hasn't had one idea that he disclosed fully and quite honestly I personally don't trust him.

He wants to give more money (via tax brakes) to big corporation to create jobs? Really, that's his plan? Big corporation have record levels of cash on hand and yet they are not creating jobs so am I supposed to feel sorry for them and give them more breaks? I don't think so.

He also wants to repeal Obamacare if for no other reason than becuae it was Obamacare. That's fine but what is his alternative to that, are we going to go back to same overpriced coverage? I agree with the fact that Obama went about it maybe not in the most correct way but honestly what is wrong with an idea of affordable heathcare?

During one of the debates Romney went after Obama about gas prices, yes they are higher then 4 years ago but in reality the government let alone the president has little influence over that, it is simple economics of supply and demand. All Romney did was repeat that several times but really didn't provide any solid plan to lower the prices.

At the end of the day I distrust Obama less then I distrust Romney based on what I've heard and seen from both of them.

I think that anyone who took office 4 years ago, would not have been able save the economy and the job market so no matter who was in office everyone would be screaming for their heads.

In my opinion until we have a third option (other then Democratic or Republican) running for president this country will not trully change. It's really sad that we have to vote against a candidate rather than for someone who we truly believe in.

 

[RaWarrior]

i allways hear folks say.." i dont wanna pay taxes so poor folks can have food stamps and welfare." would you rather see starving people and children die on the streets? i dont think so.

You say this with the conviction of someone that believes it is an either or relationship; socialism/welfare or starving children in the streets.

Since the "war on poverty" began until now, the rate has remained relatively unchanged. In otherwords welfare programs have simple taken wealth from the taxpayers without changing the situation. There are other areas where the case can be made that welfare has actually increased the misery.
Our ghettos are full of people that have effectively shunned work and personal initiative to embrace sucking money out of the wallets of those that do work. They WANT to live this way. In reality the real tough guy gets up and goes to work every day.

Exactly, it's far too easy to game the system, and proof that the system as-is does little to nothing to alleviate poverty.

Welfare ideally is supposed to help people who fall on hard times....laid off from a job, injured and can't work, a sudden expense, death, ect. It's to provide assistance until they can get back on their feet, not become a lifelong ticket to laziness.

This summer I was a conveneince store in line, there's this huge lardass lady in front of me with an armload of chips, candy, frozen meals, and sucking on one of those half-gallon fountain drinks. Goes up to the register and don't you know it, whips out that EBT card to pay for it all. Then if that wasn't enough, she has to get 2 packs of cigarettes, paid for with her own cash since EBT won't. Sure, I can pay for her junk food to get even fatter, while the money she actually has gets put toward cigarettes to give her cancer, that I will later pay the healthcare for. I wanted to knock her right the **** out.

Again, if I was president....
Welfare applications are actually reviewed based on need. You must provide proof you had steady income within the last year to be considered, and provide reasons why that income is no longer sufficient or was lost entirely.

Random drug testing is mandatory for anyone receiving government aid. You have to pass one to make money for yourself, but don't have to in order to receive a handout? Should you fail, aid is revoked for at least one month, until you test clean.

You are expected to continue working if you have a job and find one if you don't. If you do not get one on your own in 6 months, the government will find one for you. People like to whine there's no jobs, can't find work. BS. Maybe it's not work you're used to, or a job you want, but look on craigslist.....there's pages and pages of jobs out there. McDonalds is always hiring. People are just waiting for some cushy, high paying job to fall into their lap, then complain when that doesn't happen. If you don't accept or go to the job the government gives you, aid is revoked.

Baisically, welfare should be a crutch, not a wheelchair. You still need to put in effort to better yourself. If you don't, you lose it. Too bad, so sad. I find it very difficult to feel sorry for people who take and take and take, obviously gaming the system to leech off people who work since they just can't be bothered to.

Same thing for medicare. Tired of paying for all the lardasses and smokers out there. People that are sick by their own hand. Well, Judy Fatass needs assistance to buy a power wheelchair since she's too fat to walk more than a few yards, she can't afford her diabetes supplies, and needs food stamps to go buy more junk food and TV dinners.

The government will assign Judy assistance, on the condition she works with an assigned dietician/trainer to lose weight and improve her health. If the trainer reports she's cheating, not following the program, or otherwise leeching, the aid is yanked out like a carpet. Too bad. Did it to yourself, aid was offered, you failed to accept it, so you're on your own.

Heaven forbid you expect people who are receiving free money, that came from hardworking taxpayers, to actually do anything to improve themselves. A surprising amount of "poor" people receiving welfare have more money to themselves than you'd think....to pay for the luxuries they're used to like cigarettes, drugs, and even stuff like snowmobiles, motorcycles, and payments on high end cars.

I know someone who plays the system like this, I know it's possible. He drives a brand new Silverado that cost nearly $50k, just bought a recent used bike(another $6k), owns two snowmobiles, a trailer, and spends buckets of money modding the truck and bike. He is completely able-bodied, but has diabetes. He has a mediocre job that in no way supports his lifestyle, in fact it just barely covers the payments on truck and bike. He pulls a check in from the government to pay for his diabetes supplies, and something he calls "debt hardship assistance"....all the payments for his toys, and the high-interest credit cards he buys everything on. He thinks it's great, how he gamed the system and actually brags about it to people, which then immediately and correctly label him as an *******. Yet the government sees him as "poor" and eligible for assistance.


As for seeing people die on the streets....this happens every day. There's no reason for this to happen other than that person's sheer lack of motivation to better themselves. I'm all for aid to people who genuinely need it, that fell on hard times. And better aid...not just a check, but education to get a better job, "investments" in that person so they can be better off than before. Not just blindly passing out taxpayer money to druggies and leeches that want a free lunch ticket to coast through life on the backs of others.

 

[jfeagins]

"RaWarrior for President"

 

[Miles Long]

"RaWarrior for President"

+1......providing he produces his long-form birth certificate.:clapping:

 

[jfeagins]

"RaWarrior for President"

+1......providing he produces his long-form birth certificate.:clapping:

Why? The powers that be recently changed the rules regarding citizenship, so's you no longer have to be an American born to qualify.....or hadn't you heard? :biglaugh:

 

[Miles Long]

Why? The powers that be recently changed the rules regarding citizenship, so's you no longer have to be an American born to qualify.....or hadn't you heard? :biglaugh:[/QUOTE]

Actually, no. Could you provide a link to the information?
So this would mean that Arnold S. could throw his hat in the ring for the 2016 election? Maybe with Sara Palin as running mate????!
One thing for sure - American politics are soooo much more interesting than our own!
Cheers!

 

[Dr.n2o]

I hear you Ra. There's just WAAAAY to many useless shitheads in the world and they NEED their right to live without starving to death from being a lazy,useless, broke dick, leeching, no trade having, no condom wearing person of society. Just plain sucks man.

 

[Sonoran6]

If I take money from you, without asking you, it is stealing. If I say to you "you have to give me that money or there will be consequences" it is extortion.

If the government does this, its a tax and legal. Legality of an action does not make it moral.

I have no problems helping out people in need, it is my choice. I have no problem paying taxes for road maintenance, I like when roads are smooth and clean.

I do have a problem that my "tax" money pays the salary of Law Enforcement officers who blatantly are violating the constitutional oath they have sworn to protect. I have a problem paying to support OFFENSIVE wars and occupying over 130 different countries.

Neither Obamney or Rombama have the US citizens well being in their interests. They are 2 sides of the same Goldman Sachs big bank globalization one world government coin.

 

[ZackDaniels]

Welfare reform.

Read this
That's all well and good. Really some nice ideas there, but welfare hasn't been federally controlled since 1996. States control rules like this, and federal circumstances prevent them from even trying to implement rules like this. The Obama administration is actively trying to allow them to, and the Romney campaign says that it wouldn't.

Read this for details.
The president can't really do anything about it on the level you're talking about. It's state controlled the only involvement the federal government has is when the states go to the fed and say 'our well ran dry, please loan us some money for welfare checks... thanks!'

The federal government and the president DOES have control of saying yes to requests for federal funding to the state. The primary method of states getting federal funding is the TANF grant which has a set of requirements the receiving state's program must abide by. The work requirements and activities along the lines of what you mentioned are found here: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/tanf/tanf-overview.html. The whole point of these guidelines is to give some sort of assurance the state program isn't ran like garbage and just endlessly going to the federal well rather than fixing it. So the burdon of proof is on the states, and they currently have to provide all sorts of documentation to qualify for TANF. Many states say they could get better job placement rates and do so cheaper if they didn't have to set up their programs around a paper trail that qualifies for TANF grants.

In response to this the Obama administration put forth some legislation that more or less goes like this "if your state feels it could do better than the unflexible rules of TANF, it will be allowed to apply for a TANF waiver. Part of the application must state which guidelines will not be met, and what process and documentation of that process you'll be replacing it with. If it all looks on the up and up then the TANF funding to your state will be approved without having to follow the specific TANF guidelines - but your own state's substitute guidelines instead". Here's the fullest write-up on the waiver program that I can find: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203

The Romney ads you may or may not have seen regarding 'Obama guts welfare reform' take place there. The Romney campaign over-simplified this to 'Obama wants to remove requirements for welfare', when the reality is 'Obama wants to give states a chance to propose plans for doing things better without losing federal funding'. The whole point is to put more decision making ability on the States since they're the ones that handle the whole ball of wax anyway. The Romney campaign apparently thinks this is a terrible idea, and is so completely against it they're running negative ads on the premise of it.

So of the two candidates... who has the better welfare plan? Obama who wants to empower states to improve the process they're on the hook for, or Romney who.... well I can't find what he would do. Just that he wouldn't do what Obama is trying to do.