Chrysler 300M Enthusiasts Club
  • Who are you voting for?

  • A place to discuss the politics of the day.
Ocean City 2019 Banner

Membership Banner

A place to discuss the politics of the day.

Moderator: Moderators

Romney or Obama---who are you voting for

Romney
11
79%
Obama
3
21%
User avatar
 #292755  by beespecial
 
DKano wrote:It goes back to what I said earlier, that I could get stopped and possibly detained if I was in Maricopa county and didn't have proper ID with me.
I cannot understand why, REGARDLESS OF ANY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW, anyone would leave their place of residence without some kind of ID to show who they are. What if you were in an accident and you couldn't be identified? I don't go anywhere without, at a minimum, a few bucks and my drivers license. Seems to me that the only people who don't want to be identified are the ones with a reason to hide.
User avatar
 #292757  by mabraham
 
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.
Almost all states have a stop and identify statute. In most states you can be detained until you are identified, and perhaps arrested if you do not comply. Nothing new here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
User avatar
 #292759  by Bill Putney
 
Mike - You seem to know about this stuff. From the AZ law, define the term "legitimate contact" as defined legally.
User avatar
 #292760  by mabraham
 
Legitimate or lawful contact would be any contact by a law enforcement officer sanctioned by law. This includes a lawful casual encounter, or stops justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
A cop could walk up and talk to anyone legally without probable cause or anything like that. But, only under certain circumstances are you required to comply and otherwise you are free to leave.
However, for identification puropses you may be detaned, and cannot leave until you are adequately identified.
User avatar
 #292761  by 300maximilien
 
Please do not call someone a liar or question their intelligence in open Forum. We are all friends/family here and should not let our political views ruin that.

I ask that you clean your posts up and make your point in a more respectable way.
User avatar
 #292811  by Arved
 
Bill Putney wrote:
DKano wrote:...there are a lot of Republicans that view "Latinos" as illegal Mexicans. There are a lot of other countries in Latin America. In states likes FL, PA, NJ, NY, MA the Latino vote is made up of people from other countries, not just Mexico.
You can't be serious that anyone views Latinos as illegal Mexicans. No-one believes that, or that Mexico is the only Latino country. Illegal is illegal, Mexican is Mexican, Latino is Latino.
Yes - don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone thinks of Latinos as illegal immigrants. Here in Florida, I dare say, most Latinos are Cuban refugees.

Assuming racism perpetuates racism.

As for picking the lesser of two evils, as Jerry Garcia says, "Consistently choosing the lessor of two evils is still choosing evil."

I think The Economist said it best: America can do better than Obama, but Romney isn't it.

For the record, neither Romney nor Obama convinced me to vote for them, and on principle, I refused to choose the lesser evil. Instead, I chose to vote for a 3rd party candidate that better matched my political outlook than either Obama or Romney.
User avatar
 #292826  by Bill Putney
 
Arved wrote:...As for picking the lesser of two evils, as Jerry Garcia says, "Consistently choosing the lessor of two evils is still choosing evil."
That sounds brilliant until you ask Jerry what choosing the alternative accomplishes. (Yes - I know - Jerry's dead so he can't answer - and he's grateful too.) :)
I think The Economist said it best: America can do better than Obama, but Romney isn't it.

For the record, neither Romney nor Obama convinced me to vote for them, and on principle, I refused to choose the lesser evil. Instead, I chose to vote for a 3rd party candidate that better matched my political outlook than either Obama or Romney.
I definitely understand the sentiment, and agree in principle. But if there's no chance of that person getting elected, what would I have accomplished by voting for someone who only has a small percentage of the vote, and the collective result could be electing the *worst* of the two weevils.

Just know that there can be more than one weevil, or weasel, at a time to vote for!! :) :


And now for some entertainment:
 #292829  by BigMike60
 
LOL. Nice Bill. We need to lock this thread and move on with our sorry lives. I am "out" of this thread.
User avatar
 #292836  by davidlb512
 
Julio, you live in NY! How many times have you been pulled over by an AZ sheriff and asked for your "papers"??? Hahahaha. Truth is, I live in Alabama and have many Hispanic friends and acquaintances. We have the exact same authorizations given to our police departments here, that AZ has. And I have never heard anyone ever say that they were pulled over for the sole purpose of checking immigration status.

Edited offensive statement out
User avatar
 #292837  by jayman2
 
BigMike60 wrote:LOL. Nice Bill. We need to lock this thread and move on with our sorry lives. I am "out" of this thread.
X2


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
User avatar
 #292887  by slimpants
 
.

Bill Putney wrote:
Arved wrote:...As for picking the lesser of two evils, as Jerry Garcia says, "Consistently choosing the lessor of two evils is still choosing evil."
That sounds brilliant until you ask Jerry what choosing the alternative accomplishes. (Yes - I know - Jerry's dead so he can't answer - and he's grateful too.) :)
Couple young acquaintances this week: "We voted Libertarian Gary Johnson. Screw the two parties. Ain't no difference between 'em. But, eventually, we'll get enuff votes to be heard. We might as well start now."






davidlb512 wrote:offensive statement edited
That's helpful. Well done..



I'll give ya some knowledge and experience. I live in a predominately Caucasian area. Two miles up the road at 7 PM Sunday Feb 26 of this year, a 17 year-old named Trayvon Martin was shot to death in a light drizzle. Details are sketchy, but, it's likely he was guilty of walking while looking like a potential thief. And



I've taken the exact same four-mile route to the office every weekday for the past 13 years. By my own little informal poll (I pay attention when I see flashing lights), ~ 80% of those pulled over are visible minorities. I find it hard to believe that's merely a coincidence as 90% of my neighbors are white. Or, am I simply confused because it's actually Latinos and Blacks that overwhelmingly are unable to obey simple traffic laws?







.
User avatar
 #292899  by jayman2
 
slimpants wrote: I'll give ya some knowledge and experience. I live in a predominately Caucasian area. Two miles up the road at 7 PM Sunday Feb 26 of this year, a 17 year-old named Trayvon Martin was shot to death in a light drizzle. Details are sketchy, but, it's likely he was guilty of walking while looking like a potential thief. And

I've taken the exact same four-mile route to the office every weekday for the past 13 years. By my own little informal poll (I pay attention when I see flashing lights), ~ 80% of those pulled over are visible minorities. I find it hard to believe that's merely a coincidence as 90% of my neighbors are white. Or, am I simply confused because it's actually Latinos and Blacks that overwhelmingly are unable to obey simple traffic laws?
Dave, you're not confused and it's not a coincidence that almost 100% of those pulled over are minorities. It's a sad but true fact that even in this day and age in America, minorities are viewed as guilty until proven innocent, as opposed to Caucasians being innocent until proven guilty. A lot of people don't want to hear it, but it's the truth, and in their hearts they know it.

The same way of thinking is present in politics. A Barack Obama might be alright for a Mayor, maybe even a Governor, or congressman, or senator, but not the presidency, the most powerful man in the free world.

Now I'm going to make a lot of people mad, but I'm still going to say it. There are a lot of people that don't want a "Barack Obama" in the White House... In that position of power. And that's why from the moment he was nominated for the presidency, a lot of the GOP, the good ol' boys in congress had their minds made up that if, by some slim chance he won, that they were not going to show him any support and try their best to discredit him to make him a "one term president". They were so hell bent on their agenda that they were willing to let this country go down the tubes just to get this "Barack Obama" out of their White House. BUT, thank God THEY turned out to be the true minorities in this case. They and the other people that share their mind set. The true majority knew better and showed it at the polls.

Romney spent a lot of money running a bad campaign. He was caught in lies, he changed his position on issues almost on a daily basis and he and Ryan declared war on women (big mistake). He's arrogant and very unlikeable. I would believe most people shudder at the thought of him having anything to do with foreign affairs. Quite a few of his supporters had him winning the election by a landslide.

The simple truth is, Mitt Romney didn't give the voters any reason to vote for him...so they didn't. The Obama campaign knew this simple fact: If there is an incumbent president that nobody wants, and a candidate that nobody wants, the majority of the voters will vote for the incumbent.

The Republicans are going to have to start finding candidates that are more in touch with the people and the issues if they want to get back into the White House. They had McCain back in 2008 and he went and got Sara Palin, that was a real smart move. Then they got Romney, he already had a track record for losing. He should've have been used to it by now, but he was so arrogant that he stated that "he didn't even write a concession speech" (that was a riot).

Obama won in Wisconsin, Paul Ryan's home state. He even won in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney's home state. And what about John Boehner's state of Ohio. Talk about support...

Thank God the American people had more sense than the Republican's gave them credit for. Maybe now that Obama is serving his last term and cannot run again, hopefully congress will finally get down and try to work with him to save our country.
User avatar
 #292901  by Bill Putney
 
jayman2 wrote:...he and Ryan declared war on women (big mistake)...
Fair enoguh, Les. Obviously I disagree with most of what you just said, and that's alright, but would you please elaborate on the "war on women" thing. That's one area that seemed to me to be a total fabrication out of thin air designed to excite the base - one of those "say it often and loud enough" with nothing specific that's true, and the regular Democrat party base will believe it.

So - yes - please elaborate, and please keep it real. I'll just start off by saying if it has anything to do with Sandra Fluke and her idiocy, then you've lost me already. Beyond that, I'd be interested in what you have to say
User avatar
 #292905  by 300maximilien
 
300maximilien wrote:We are all friends/family here and should not let our political views ruin that.

Make your points in a more respectable way.

No singling out, but just food for thought. I had to fix something again.

Thank you
User avatar
 #292908  by jayman2
 
Bill Putney wrote:
jayman2 wrote:...he and Ryan declared war on women (big mistake)...
Fair enoguh, Les. Obviously I disagree with most of what you just said, and that's alright, but would you please elaborate on the "war on women" thing. That's one area that seemed to me to be a total fabrication out of thin air designed to excite the base - one of those "say it often and loud enough" with nothing specific that's true, and the regular Democrat party base will believe it.

So - yes - please elaborate, and please keep it real. I'll just start off by saying if it has anything to do with Sandra Fluke and her idiocy, then you've lost me already. Beyond that, I'd be interested in what you have to say
Thanks Bill, for not taking my post the wrong way. I was just trying to show another side of view. First of all, I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican. I guess you could call me an independent. I stopped voting party a long time ago. I vote for the candidate that I honestly believe will screw us the least. I don't believe most politicians are honest. I believe that any politician will say anything he/she feels they can get away with to get elected.

My statements about Obama and Romney were based only on what I have seen and read so far. We all know the mess that Obama found when he took office. It's unreasonable for people to think that as soon as he got elected, he could just snap his fingers and make it all go away. A presiden is not a king or a dictator. There's only so much he can do alone. He has to be supported. If he presents a bill to the house and says please sign it and they won't, then that's that. Or if he has to make so many compromises to get it passed that it loses it's effectiveness.

Bill, when I said that Romney and Ryan had declared war on women, that may have been a little strong, but when Romney suggested that-

"only women need special accommodation because they have go home to get supper on the table. That's not only offensive to women; it is, in fact, offensive to men. Men don't cook dinner for their families? Men don't need to be home to help kids with their homework or to spend time with them?"
That's from an article located here:
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/mitt ... oblem.html

When I was coming up, both my mother and father worked full time and which ever of them got home first started supper.

This is another excerpt from that article-
"Women are on to Mitt Romney. That's why he's trying so hard to spin away the truth about his extreme positions, like during last night's debate when he dishonestly claimed that he doesn't "believe employers should tell someone whether they could contraceptive care or not.' These are the facts: he'd put women's health care decisions in the hands of their employers, has said he'd be "delighted' to sign a bill banning all abortions, and called Roe v. Wade "one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history,' while pledging to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn it. Women simply can't trust him to stand up for them."

Here's part of an aticle from nytimes.com. The webpage can be found here -
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opini ... women.html

"On these issues, Mitt Romney is no moderate. On the contrary, he is considerably more extreme than President George W. Bush was. He insists, for example, on cutting off money for cancer screenings conducted by Planned Parenthood.

The most toxic issue is abortion, and what matters most for that is Supreme Court appointments. The oldest justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a 79-year-old liberal, and if she were replaced by a younger Antonin Scalia, the balance might shift on many issues, including abortion.

One result might be the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which for nearly four decades has guaranteed abortion rights. If it is overturned, abortion will be left to the states - and in Mississippi or Kansas, women might end up being arrested for obtaining abortions.

Frankly, I respect politicians like Paul Ryan who are consistently anti-abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. I disagree with them, but their position is unpopular and will cost them votes, so it's probably heartfelt as well as courageous. I have less respect for Romney, whose positions seem based only on political calculations.

Romney's campaign Web site takes a hard line. It says that life begins at conception, and it gives no hint of exceptions in which he would permit abortion. The Republican Party platform likewise offers no exceptions. Romney says now that his policy is to oppose abortion with three exceptions: rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at stake.

If you can figure out Romney's position on abortion with confidence, tell him: at times it seems he can't remember it. In August, he abruptly added an exception for the health of the mother as well as her life, and then he backed away again.

Romney has also endorsed a "personhood" initiative treating a fertilized egg as a legal person. That could lead to murder charges for an abortion, even to save the life of a mother.

In effect, Romney seems to have jumped on board a Republican bandwagon to tighten access to abortion across the board. States passed a record number of restrictions on abortion in the last two years. In four states, even a woman who is seeking an abortion after a rape may be legally required to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound.

If politicians want to reduce the number of abortions, they should promote family planning and comprehensive sex education. After all, about half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which conducts research on reproductive health.

Yet Romney seems determined to curb access to contraceptives. His campaign Web site says he would "eliminate Title X family planning funding," a program created in large part by two Republicans, George H. W. Bush and Richard Nixon.

Romney has boasted that he would cut off all money for Planned Parenthood - even though federal assistance for the organization has nothing to do with abortions. It pays for such things as screenings to reduce breast cancer and cervical cancer.

Romney's suspicion of contraception goes way back. As governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill that would have given women who were raped access to emergency contraception.

Romney also wants to reinstate the "global gag rule," which barred family planning money from going to aid organizations that even provided information about abortion. He would cut off money for the United Nations Population Fund, whose work I've seen in many countries - supporting contraception, repairing obstetric fistulas, and fighting to save the lives of women dying in childbirth.

So when you hear people scoff that there's no real difference between Obama and Romney, don't believe them.

And it's not just women who should be offended at the prospect of a major step backward. It's all of us."


The way I see it...with the state that the job market and the economey are in, the fact that the American voters, rather than put Romney in office, re-elected Obama by a landslide...that says a lot.
User avatar
 #292930  by 300maximilien
 
Thread closed at the request of the OP since orininal topic was accomplished. If you wish to continue any of the discussions in this thread feel free to copy, paste and continue in a new thread.

Thankyou