Romney's chances in Ohio are delt a blow by the Supreme Court
@thegreatdebater (7316)
United States
October 16, 2012 6:21pm CST
Republicans in Ohio are doing all they can to suppress votes, and were dealt a swift blow by the Supreme Court standing up for ALL voters no matter who you vote for. This was a victor for the American people, and the constitution of the United States of America. The republicans in Ohio, and Mitt Romney tried to block voting the last three days before the election. Republicans, who run the entire government, claimed that only military members and their families should be able to vote on these days, and claimed that democrats were trying to take away the rights of military families to vote early (NO ONE has been able to explain this claim seeing how ALL Ohioans will be able to vote three days leading up to the election, which is what the court said is FAIR!!!). When republicans looked at early voting they noticed that much of the early voting went to Obama. The reason Ohio moved to this early voting was because of long lines and not enough ballets in the urban areas in 2004 (many believe the ballet issue was done on purpose seeing how the person running the election, Ken Blackwell, also ran Bush's reelection campaign in Ohio, and GUARANTEED Bush would be reelected).
Do you feel the Supreme Court was correct in this ruling?
5 responses
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
17 Oct 12
Personally I think all states should have more than one day for voting. Due to work and life schedules a lot of people may not get to vote in that ONE day. Open it up to multiple days and you have a greater opportunity for the general population to vote in the election. It would also cut down on the lines.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
17 Oct 12
That is what we did here in Ohio in 2008, but republicans realized that if they could restrict that, they could suppress voters that voted for Obama. They will do ANYTHING to beat Obama, including intimidation (look at all of these CEO's sending out BS e-mails), and suppression. This says volumes about what republicans stand for, and their morals when they can't win an election on an even playing field!!!
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
18 Oct 12
There are a lot of people that care, and that WON'T vote for Romney because of the way people like you were treated. What they did by silencing the Paul supporters at the RNC was uncalled for, and if I was a Paul supporter I would be very upset with how everything turned out. Ron Paul COULD have been the nominee, but the RNC had already decided who they wanted, and it didn't matter how anyone else voted.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
18 Oct 12
You don't have to tell me what lengths the GOP will go to...I just finished a brutal primary with the RP campaign. The GOP treated us horribly and no one cares or reports on it. But there you go.
1 person likes this
@sirnose (2436)
• United States
16 Oct 12
Thank goodness that we have open minded judges who see what these ploys are design for, to deny people their right to vote. Here where I live in Texas the Republicans passed a voter ID bill to discourage voters from voting. Everywhere where Republicans are the majority they try to stop poor folks from using their voting power.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
17 Oct 12
I think it is sad that people want suppress voting, and intimidate voters. Those who pass theses laws need to be removed from office, and sent back to where they came from!!! Our founding fathers would NEVER of approved of these laws!!!!
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
18 Oct 12
To all of the illiterates like this poster:
First, no one is trying to disenfranchise anyone.
Second, here is my take on where the future of voting for president and even local elections are headed:
In the near future we will see actual voting polls with voting machines disappear and voting, all voting will take place via the internet. This will pose many problems for the people who are too hard headed to get an ID and make every excuse in the world about it being so hard but in this instance I believe the ID's will be SS numbers and only one vote per registered SS number. Of course it will create a hardship for public places like libraries and schools as those places will have to provide a place to vote for people without computers and internet access.
Oh, by the way, someone who has absolutely nothing to say about his record because it stinks usually will debate by interrupting and trying to put his opponent off his game. If anyone really believes Obama won that debate, wait and see who actually gets the bump in the polls. CNN and their trained monkey WANTED Obama to win but he just couldn't pull it off because his record STINKS.
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
18 Oct 12
What do you think we have now? Anyone who doesnt want to have to present identification to vote reeks of fraud but liberals want to protect their right to vote and I agree they do have the right to vote but OMLY ONCE!
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
18 Oct 12
I know. Voter fraud is a big problem. They need to fix it. But as soon as you say that someone screams discrimination.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
17 Oct 12
Fat, first off the polls are open anyways for military families to vote, so there would be no additional expense. Second, we spend TRILLIONS on other things that DON'T affect democracy, why not spend more on things that DO affect it?
@mariaperalta (19073)
• Mexico
8 Mar 13
I think he would have mad ea better Pres. than Obama has. Feel sorry for the usa. $ years more of Obama bama.
