Obama and the 2012 Election

@ sobre mi cadaver
I'm not sure if a candidate has ever been charged with vote fraud. There have been situations where votes needed to be recounted because of accidents or suspected errors (ie, the Bush/Gore Florida situation a ways back). When a new President is elected, there is a "lame duck" period where the old President is still in power, which allows time for recounts and sorting out any issues that arise.

Kennedy was accused of vote fraud, but it was never really investigated because Nixon said he would not contest the results.

I liked Biden. I felt like he actually pointed out a lot of lies the Republicans are running on, I loved that he called Ryan and Romney out on their bullshit. I felt like he used the debate to get the right points across to the American people who were watching it. Sorry, but someone said before that debates are entertainment and they pretty much are. Biden used that to educate, get his message across effectively (with specifics), and discredit his opponent. I say that's a win.

Especially when Paul Ryan lied, didn't answer questions, and didn't have any specifics.

@ dru will wait.
I'm completely with you. I feel like Biden struggled a bit in the first twenty minutes or so, and still had a few ouch moments after, but he really found his footing this time. And he stuck with it and really impressed me. And I'm actually really looking forward to next week's debate. I can't wait to see how well Obama does, since he works better in town hall settings than he does in debate settings.

I liked Joe Biden at the debates. I came in late and didn't watch the presidential one, so I don't know how well Obama did, but I feel Biden stood up for himself well. He's kind of got a reputation of being boring or not a good public speaker, and I didn't see that at all. I thought he was assertive while being soft-spoken. And I always love it when people like that admit to having a certain view on something (his being a Catholic and the abortion issue), but admit that theirs is not the only viewpoint.

Ryan reminds me of a guy I was in debate with. He would take a question than ramble and then twist it around and ask you a stupidly worded question that you can't help but sound stupid answering. It irked me.

I wish the fairly bipartisan Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney was the same Mitt Romney running for President. He talks about these great things he did (with Democrats) in Massachusetts, but he has nothing like that in his presidential plans. The John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Romney just talked about is a great program that helps any student who makes decent grades in school go to school tuition free. It worked successfully around NCLB testing mandates, but students can take the test multiple times and receive help preparing, so it doesn't put students in cut throat do-or-die test situation. I wish my state had a program like that, I'd be going to school tuition free with a lot less of a headache and to my first choice school.

But does Romney have a federal plan like that? Hell no, and it was misleading of him to answer that student's question using that scholarship as an example.

@ Kurtni
Something else that is really bothering me is how he has suddenly become a champion for middle and lower class Americans. Since when has he cared? I've been watching this guy flip and flop and jump around the idea, and not once has he even pretended to care. He made all of those recent comments about those of us that depend on the government (and I'm one of them; I'm on a Medicaid plan and I'm sure as hell not ashamed because I need it), and now he suddenly cares? What does it matter to him that millions of students nationwide are deep enough in student loan debt to buy a new car or make a down payment on a house?

I'm just really confused, and I'm wondering why the hell he's pretending to care when I know he doesn't.

Edit: He just said that he thinks women should get contraception no matter what. He has spent the last year fighting against my reproductive rights and my healthcare rights, and I am furious. When did all of this change happen? I'm calling BS...

Oh my god. On news coverage of the debate, they just showed a flashback of when Al Gore snuck up and creeped on Bush during a town hall debate YES.

---

I was really pleased with Obama's performance tonight, aside from the Libya situation. I do not approve of throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus, but Jesus, I'm glad she had the balls to own up to a terrible mistake and take responsibility, when no one else in the administration would.

This is gonna be short.
I could go on and on about how much i loathe Obama. He ruined our country as a whole and should not be re-elected for America's sake.
Romney is better, not the best but the U.S would be in better hannds with him as our president.

@ Lost_In_The_Echo

Why?

I found it hilarious how completely non-subtle Romney's reference to believing in God was. I mean, asserting Christianity has always been part of candidates' presidential races, but he practically dove into it without even smoothly running on to the subject.

Question.

I'm reading something on contraceptives and reproductive care for women and stances on these issues by presidential candidates and I'm trying my best to understand fully what this means:

Allow full access to all medically justified contraceptive and reproductive care.

Medically justified. What does this mean? Does it mean that you have to undergo through a medical examination in order to be able to take contraceptives (and I assume reproductive care includes abortion)? Meaning that it will be only available for some?

@ sobre mi cadaver

I think 'medically justified contraceptive and reproductive care' might refers to people who have specific health problems (e.g. ovarian cysts) rather than people who just want contraceptives because they don't want to get pregnant. You already have to undergo medical examinations to get hormonal contraceptives, IUDs or abortions because they all carry potential health risks e.g. some hormonal contraceptives increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, IUD can lead to infection, etc - so it's important to know whether the person getting the contraceptives doesn't have any health problems.

@ kafka.
Thank you. I was thinking on the regular examination you need to get in order to assess which contraceptive will be best for you at first (for some reason the IUD never crossed my mind), but then it started sounding more like "contraceptives for people who have health problems", so I wasn't sure.

This, I suppose, also includes abortion as being a health issue to the mother (which I hope it expands to also cases of rape), instead of abortion for someone who does not want to become one.

@ sobre mi cadaver
Was this on Jill Stein's page? I've seen something similar like this before, and I was surprised to see it on her page, because it sounds like the type of confusing rhetoric Republicans use to say they support birth control/women's health, but at the same time they put unnecessary restrictions on it. (Ie, not wanting to get pregnant isn't a medically necessary thing, so many woman wouldn't have the "justification" to get birth control)

But I don't think that's Stein's intent, because she supports planned parenthood, morning after pill, Roe v. Wade, yada yada yada.

Kurtni:

@ sobre mi cadaver
Was this on Jill Stein's page? I've seen something similar like this before, and I was surprised to see it on her page, because it sounds like the type of confusing rhetoric Republicans use to say they support birth control/women's health, but at the same time they put unnecessary restrictions on it. (Ie, not wanting to get pregnant isn't a medically necessary thing, so many woman wouldn't have the "justification" to get birth control)

But I don't think that's Stein's intent, because she supports planned parenthood, morning after pill, Roe v. Wade, yada yada yada.

Yes, it is on her page. I was doing some research on her and found it contradictory to her stance on everything else that is why I was making sure by asking whether what I was reading and interpreting was correct.

What do you all think about the recent cases of voter fraud? Do you think these people are acting independently or is there some kind of conspiracy? Could it possibly affect the outcome of the popular vote?

@ braineater.
Voter fraud is a big bucket of bullshit. Statistically insignificant, disenfranchising, un-American wild goose chase intended to manipulative voter turnout. I think that if it's allowed to continue, it could absolutely have an impact on the election, but so far it seems like the courts have been fairly on top of it (I think it was Ohio that just struck down a measure intended to suppress voters?, though it may have been elsewhere).

edit// Sorry, I got caught up in my mini-rant and forgot to ask which recent cases you're referring to. Like, cases of actual voter fraud, or the laws that state governments have been striking down lately?

@ chai latte

It's all good, I should've clarified! The question was mostly referring to the cases of voter registrations being tampered with over the last few weeks- I think the most recent was at a college in Virginia. People are registering to vote at booths paid for by (usually) republican sponsors and then later finding out their registrations were never mailed/were physically destroyed and that they are not registered to vote.

...Are cases like these actually considered voter fraud? Maybe there's a better term for it.

Obama's horses and bayonets comment was epic.

Kurtni:

Obama's horses and bayonets comment was epic.

I'm watching now and I just got to that bit. Brilliant analogy.