(sigh) here we go again...

And in the on going war against voters, the republicans in Ohio have added their own particular twist to it all. They have kept early, in person voting for the military and their families, and eliminated it for everyone else, canceling the sat, sun and mon before the election, traditionally times when certain groups vote.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...173202620.html

And then dishonestly spin the Obama administration's suit to restore it to ALL Ohio people as 'trying to prevent military from voting'.

They are so incredibly dishonest! They know their guy or their party can't win without cheating or voter suppression!

I shouldn't be surprised by these scum tactics considering the sources, and yet i am. I guess what really surprises me is how many Americans are willing to go along and even defend this disenfranchising of other Americans. It's just a symptom of the systematic disrespecting and dehumanizing of one party towards the other. And it is very sad that so many Americans will so easily toss under the bus other Americans.
If I thought that republican voters were being suppressed, or tossed out, or otherwise systematically discouraged, denied or dissuaded from voting just because they were republican, you bet your ass I'd be up in arms about that! But, sadly, maybe another difference between republicans and democrats. Democrats want everyone to vote, and republicans only want 'some' to vote.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Democrats want everyone to vote, and republicans only want 'some' to vote.:(

---

Awww come on now peggy. Wouldn't you really rather see me stay home on November 6 just in case it's close?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Democrats want everyone to vote, and republicans only want 'some' to vote.:(

---

Democrats: vote early, vote often, and vote from the grave if we can find you! We have buses all ready to go, and union assistance in case you have trouble finding enough polling places!

http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...ase-982948.php
http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...ly-3402957.php


I bet we can find more examples.....

http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/W...138314509.html

I bet we can even find both parties engaged in it...

Why do we put up with it?

I think we're going to see more of the opposite this time around - valid voters (id's in hand) turned away from the polls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Democrats: vote early, vote often, and vote from the grave if we can find you! We have buses all ready to go, and union assistance in case you have trouble finding enough polling places!

http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...ase-982948.php
http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...ly-3402957.php


I bet we can find more examples.....

http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/W...138314509.html

I bet we can even find both parties engaged in it...

Why do we put up with it?

---

The first two are the the same guy who, by reading the article we find comes by his dishonesty 'honestly' as his dad was a scumbag too.
The third is also absentee ballot fraud.
Both would not be affected by voter ID laws as they were carried out at the 'courthouse level'. In fact, voter suppression laws, which voter ID laws are, would make this kind of crime EAISER as so many more would not be able to vote because of the id requirements, my dad, your grandmother, anyone who doesn't drive or travel out of the country, etc...thereby giving criminals even MORE names of non-voting voters to 'vote absentee'

On the national level there hasn't even been 1 case of in person voter fraud per state per vote in the last 10 years. Hardly worthy of preventing hundreds of thousands of voters from exercising their constitutional right.

But this is a distraction. We are talking about Ohio and their republicans blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters, except their block (military) of voters. Why would they cease early voting for everyone except military? This is so transparently dishonest! How transparently blatant does the attempt have to be before you see it or admit it? Here, let me make it even easier. The Penn. republican chairman actually lays it out for us. Says it in his own words! Voter ID laws will help Romney win.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/penn...lp_romney_win/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Awww come on now peggy. Wouldn't you really rather see me stay home on November 6 just in case it's close?

---

No Gregg, I want you to vote. I want you to vote for that empty suit just waiting for Limbaugh or Norquist to shove their hand up his butt and pull the strings, cause if by some chance he wins, I want to know who to blame when this country falls off a cliff! I want to know who has the blood of our young service-people on their hands when he starts yet another war.

I want to know who voted for the most secretive candidate since Nixon, who's anti-transparent, holds no conviction on anything, refuses to actually discuss anything in his resume,(Bain, governorship) and expects you to vote for him just because he is him...or he deserves it...or it's his turn!

Yeah Gregg, I want you to vote! :)

Now, what do you say about these Ohio shenanigans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

No Gregg, I want you to vote.

---

Ok peggy, ya talked me into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Now, what do you say about these Ohio shenanigans?

---

To be honest I've paid a lot more attention to the Olympics than politics the past week or two. I've been trying to stay on top of issues here so have only really heard sound bites from Ohio. DS lives there and, as you know, he is fairly involved politically. I'll talk to him to get a little better idea of who's doing what before I say much. I think Alan is based in Ohio and he's certainly on top of issues so maybe he will share a little insight from ground zero while I try to get up to speed.

Quote:

---

I want to know who has the blood of our young service-people on their hands when he starts yet another war.

---

I still don't know whether Romney or Obama is more likely to do so. I assume you are talking Iran or Syria (which one first, changes every week?). Romney is giving off bad signals sure, talking about appointing neo-cons to his cabinet and so on. I don't see why anyone would have any reason whatsoever to trust Romney on these matters, all his signals are "more war".

But I also have no real confidence that Obama won't start these wars (merely that he hasn't yet - more or less) More or less? Yea well in some sense the U.S. military may already be said to be at war with these countries will all the covert stuff going on. The CIA is getting involved in covertly assisting rebels in Syria etc.. But it's not open war yet. All Obama has done so far is expanded drone operations to half a dozen other countries.

Throw a coin, heads or tails, who knows. No good choices left. The good choice for this on the Republican side was Ron Paul of course. No Dems ran against Obama so what can I say. There were no good choices for this on that side.

ok Gregg, fair enough. But I do want to hear your input when you have thought about it awhile. Alan's too, although I can pretty much guess his take on this, but maybe I'm wrong, and should apologize for assuming.

As for the Olympics, I'm sorry, I really don't like them. i don't normally watch sports anyway so I don't get all worked up for this sport event. Sure, the Olympics used to be a THING. A very special competition among countries. But, international competition happens every day in this modern age, so forgive me if i don't find the Olympics special. I just find them annoying really as it's all over the TV and papers and I can't really escape them.
And tell me this! Why isn't golf one of the sports? I mean, here is an exceedingly popular summer sport, one that takes great skill and is fairly objective in judging. Why isn't it one of the sports of the Olympics? They have beach volleyball for heavens sakes! And synchronized swimming!:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

I still don't know whether Romney or Obama is more likely to do so. I assume you are talking Iran or Syria (which one first, changes every week?). Romney is giving off bad signals sure, talking about appointing neo-cons to his cabinet and so on. I don't see why anyone would have any reason whatsoever to trust Romney on these matters, all his signals are "more war".

But I also have no real confidence that Obama won't start these wars (merely that he hasn't yet - more or less) More or less? Yea well in some sense the U.S. military may already be said to be at war with these countries will all the covert stuff going on. The CIA is getting involved in covertly assisting rebels in Syria etc.. But it's not open war yet. All Obama has done so far is expanded drone operations to half a dozen other countries.

Throw a coin, heads or tails, who knows. No good choices left. The good choice for this on the Republican side was Ron Paul of course. No Dems ran against Obama so what can I say. There were no good choices for this on that side.

---

Well, I understand what you are saying. But I think boots on the ground war, like Iraq and Afghanistan, is different than drones or sending advisers or providing arms even to let folks fight their own wars. Sometimes war, or war like actions, are necessary. Bush blew it with Iraq, but pretty much had the country with him on Afghanistan. We don't' want a pointless, costly (in dollars and lives) war like Iraq, but we also, in good conscience, can't allow a genocide. The civilized world can't or shouldn't allow a genocide. But it's really damned if you do and damned if you don't. somebody is going to get killed, or a lot of somebodies. But the question is, who. Is it innocents who are caught on the wrong side of ethnicity, or religion, or the ones who would eradicate them. it really isn't black and white, but a whole lot of shades of grey. Each case is different, each with it's own set of rules and parameters. The difficult job of the President is to navigate those parameters, and decide if we get involved or not. this is where Bush blew it with Iraq. He so desperately wanted Iraq to be guilty so he cherry picked what he wanted to see and know, and completely ignored the truth. And he relied to heavily on Cheney, and his neocon info, closing his eyes and ears to other voices.

This is the real difficulty in choosing a President. Is our candidate able to filter through all this and come to a conclusion that holds the truth, or simply what he wants to hear. Or what he thinks his supporters want to hear. Or is he easily manipulated? I think this was Bush's greatest fault. He was as easy as putty to manipulation. I never doubted he loved his country and though/was convinced he was doing what was right. I just think he lacked independent thought, or curiosity, or whatever it takes to form a sound judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

ok Gregg, fair enough. But I do want to hear your input when you have thought about it awhile. Alan's too, although I can pretty much guess his take on this, but maybe I'm wrong, and should apologize for assuming.

---

I think it's a non-issue being exploited for political gain.

Previously, the local board of elections in Ohio determined early in-person voting times for their area, which resulted in some counties having evening and weekend hours while others didn't. Now, the state has stepped in and created legislation to apply uniformity to the statewide election process and limiting all in-person early voting (excepting military members) during the 72 hours leading up to election day, although affirming that early in-person voting is allowed beginning 35 days prior to election day.

These rules apply across the board. No one can vote in person during that 72 hour period, therefore the Obama administrations claim that certain demographics would be unduly repressed seems absurd when taken at face value.

Every state has it's own rules regarding in-person early voting. Some don't allow it at all! And yet, for some reason, the Justice Department has decided to go after Ohio. It's importance as a swing state probably has nothing to do with it dontcha think?

If you really want my opinion, I'd say that the lawsuit re-affirms my belief that the Obama administration believes it can only win if it divides the nation, creating the allusion of victimhood to as many people as possible. I'll be glad when it's over.

Am I understanding that correctly Alan, that people (as in any registered voter) can vote up to 35 days before the election, just not in the 3 days immediately before? If that is correct then the exemption for military personnel makes sense to me as the possibility they could be deployed out of state in that time frame does exist where it really doesn't for most of the rest of us. I can see the rub if the 35 day window were to close, but as it stands it sounds like there is no issue to debate. Unless there happens to be a significant number of procrastinators (from a protesting party who shall remain nameless) that just can't make it to the polls on election day...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Am I understanding that correctly Alan, that people (as in any registered voter) can vote up to 35 days before the election, just not in the 3 days immediately before?

---

Yes.
Anyone interested in a review of the current rules for early voting in all the states can see a breakdown here: http://www.longdistancevoter.org/early_voting_rules
As I previously mentioned, some states don't allow it at all. Others may limit it to 10 days before the election and still others may exclude weekends from their early voting time frame.

It certainly makes me wonder why Ohio was singled out for prosecution by the Justice Department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I think it's a non-issue being exploited for political gain.

Previously, the local board of elections in Ohio determined early in-person voting times for their area, which resulted in some counties having evening and weekend hours while others didn't. Now, the state has stepped in and created legislation to apply uniformity to the statewide election process and limiting all in-person early voting (excepting military members) during the 72 hours leading up to election day, although affirming that early in-person voting is allowed beginning 35 days prior to election day.

These rules apply across the board. No one can vote in person during that 72 hour period, therefore the Obama administrations claim that certain demographics would be unduly repressed seems absurd when taken at face value.

Every state has it's own rules regarding in-person early voting. Some don't allow it at all! And yet, for some reason, the Justice Department has decided to go after Ohio. It's importance as a swing state probably has nothing to do with it dontcha think?

If you really want my opinion, I'd say that the lawsuit re-affirms my belief that the Obama administration believes it can only win if it divides the nation, creating the allusion of victimhood to as many people as possible. I'll be glad when it's over.

---

It's only a non issue if it's not your vote being 'tampered' with. Why this arbitrary stop of early voting, except with military? My family was in the military 30 years, these people get a lunch break, most weekends off, coffee breaks, just like everyone else. And I can almost guarantee you no one is going to be 'surprised' with deployment orders after hours on Friday to leave before Tuesday. That just doesn't happen. In fact, even in war time, you generally get weeks or even months notice. But even if it were to happen to one person, that person's spouse isn't going with him/her, so why give this special treatment to her/him?
But that's not the issue. Why deny the rest of Ohio voters this weekend? Because, first of all Ohio went to Obama last time and the republican legislature wants to change that. Traditionally many voters go after church on the Sunday before the election. This is a tradition with many people, especially minorities. Republicans know this which is why they are doing this. It is yet another blatant attempt to suppress democratic votes in a swing state.
No illusion here, Allen. It's very real discrimination. Why ever would you support denying Ohio voters what they have traditionally had, but only give it to the military? Forget the '35 days' crap, we are talking about the 3 days before the election, when people traditionally vote. How is it a non issue to allow one voting block to have those 3 days and no one else?

This tampering with the voting rules just reaffirms my belief that the Republicans think they can only win if they divide the nation further with arbitrary rules that seek to suppress democratic voters, knowing their own base is either too incurious or ideologically blinded to either notice or care. Or they will find ways to justify the unequal application of 'rules'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

No illusion here, Allen. It's very real discrimination. Why ever would you support denying Ohio voters what they have traditionally had, but only give it to the military? Forget the '35 days' crap, we are talking about the 3 days before the election, when people traditionally vote. How is it a non issue to allow one voting block to have those 3 days and no one else?

---

It's not true that Ohio voters are being denied something they've traditionally had. In the 2000 Presidential election, my wife and I were scheduled to be in France on election day. Since there was no in-person early voting allowed at that time, we had to vote using absentee ballots and had to prove that we would not be within our district on election day in order to do that.

With the adoption of early, in-person, voting the rules for implementation were left to the various counties to adopt and as a result I think that only a dozen or so ever allowed weekend voting at all. My county was not one of them.

Perhaps you can argue that the state shouldn't have imposed a standard on the counties and you may even argue that it shouldn't have allowed an exception to military members, but neither of those seem to be your point.

I can tell you that Ohio provides more early voting opportunity than most other states in terms of the number of days it is allowed, and it's 72 hour ban is not unusual either as several other states do the same.

I believe the Justice Department's lawsuit is designed to inspire folks like yourself, who read a slanted opinion piece on how terrible the Republicans are, to make their way to the polls early and often. That sort of thing does seem to work for some.

Edited to add:

By the way, you live in Missouri don't you? Your state doesn't allow in-person early voting at all while my state of Ohio allows 32 days of in-person early voting. And we're the one being sued?

voter Fraud is a complete non issue Alan and you know it so I would very much appreciate it if you quit implying that Democrats cheat regularly by voting 'early and often'.

The ban on early voting the 3 days prior is unequal! That is exactly my point. Have it for none, or have it for all. Pretty simple Alan. No smoke and mirrors, just equal application of the voting rules for ALL.

Excuse me if I don't buy their 'perfectly reasonable' explanation for this from the republican legislature as the republicans have been screwing with voting laws across the nation in order to help their guy win. Dishonest cheaters, from your leader Rush Limbaugh who advised his followers to vote in liberal primaries where allowed to screw up the nominations, to the Penn republican chairman who inadvertently 'gave away' what we already knew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60
and a Wisconsin republican senator agrees.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...hman-voter-id/

Whether they have 5 days or 50 days or 20 minutes to vote is not the issue. Absentee ballots are not the issue. Ohio's laws compared to other states is not the issue.
It is an issue when laws are applied unequally, favoring one group over another. Period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

voter Fraud is a complete non issue Alan and you know it so I would very much appreciate it if you quit implying that Democrats cheat regularly by voting 'early and often'.

The ban on early voting the 3 days prior is unequal! That is exactly my point. Have it for none, or have it for all. Pretty simple Alan. No smoke and mirrors, just equal application of the voting rules for ALL.

Excuse me if I don't buy their 'perfectly reasonable' explanation for this from the republican legislature as the republicans have been screwing with voting laws across the nation in order to help their guy win. Dishonest cheaters, from your leader Rush Limbaugh who advised his followers to vote in liberal primaries where allowed to screw up the nominations, to the Penn republican chairman who inadvertently 'gave away' what we already knew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60
and a Wisconsin republican senator agrees.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...hman-voter-id/

Whether they have 5 days or 50 days or 20 minutes to vote is not the issue. Absentee ballots are not the issue. Ohio's laws compared to other states is not the issue.
It is an issue when laws are applied unequally, favoring one group over another. Period

---

Well if you simply don't want the military to be exempted from another state's early voting rules, you should have just said so rather than basing your thread on the disenfranchisement of Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Well if you simply don't want the military to be exempted from another state's early voting rules, you should have just said so rather than basing your thread on the disenfranchisement of Americans.

---

Well it's a republican legislature and they have been pulling all sorts of dirty tricks all across the country so I call it as i see it. But for Ohio, specifically, it is an issue of equal application of the law. I don't want to exempt anyone, I think all states should have early voting including the weekend before the election. Too many people have difficulty getting to the polls during the week and this would help everyone. It would allow everyone to vote, no excuses, and i want everyone to vote. It's their duty.
Do you agree this is wrong application of the law? And not just your off hand dismissal of the justice departments doing their job as a 'liberal' thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Well it's a republican legislature and they have been pulling all sorts of dirty tricks all across the country so I call it as i see it. But for Ohio, specifically, it is an issue of equal application of the law. I don't want to exempt anyone, I think all states should have early voting including the weekend before the election. Too many people have difficulty getting to the polls during the week and this would help everyone. It would allow everyone to vote, no excuses, and i want everyone to vote. It's their duty.
Do you agree this is wrong application of the law? And not just your off hand dismissal of the justice departments doing their job as a 'liberal' thing.

---

Voting is a state issue as evidenced by the varying laws in the 50 states. The Federal Government has no business injecting itself into the issue for any means, much less political means. Ohio's early voting requirements are more generous than the vast majority of states. It allows three weekends of early voting for those who would prefer that the DNC provide bus service from their churches directly to the nearest polling place. There are at least a dozen other states that limit early voting ranging from 2 to 7 days prior to election day.

A reasonable review of Ohio early voting requirements would show that they are among the most generous in terms of accommodation in the entire country.

The real issue seems to be that the legislature decided to allow military members and their families to be exempted from the 72 hour closing window. Your argument, which mirrors the Justice Dept's lawsuit, seems to be that this results in a Republican advantage, an argument that I find specious.

Just consider this forum as an example. Several folks have previously identified themselves as past military members or as military dependants. There's you, a liberal, Freein05 - liberal, Beststash - liberal, Spartana - mostly liberal, Storyteller - admitted socialist, and me - conservative. That's certainly not scientific and probably not indicative of the political makeup of today's active duty military, but it at least tells me that the Republican party doesn't have a lock on the military vote.

Although I take bae's point about the positive aspects of neighborhood voting, this kind of thing--along with various historical political shenanigans--make me even more of a booster of vote-by-mail for all. A paper trail, no lines, and fewer shenanigans. All good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Voting is a state issue as evidenced by the varying laws in the 50 states. The Federal Government has no business injecting itself into the issue for any means, much less political means. Ohio's early voting requirements are more generous than the vast majority of states. It allows three weekends of early voting for those who would prefer that the DNC provide bus service from their churches directly to the nearest polling place. There are at least a dozen other states that limit early voting ranging from 2 to 7 days prior to election day.

A reasonable review of Ohio early voting requirements would show that they are among the most generous in terms of accommodation in the entire country.

The real issue seems to be that the legislature decided to allow military members and their families to be exempted from the 72 hour closing window. Your argument, which mirrors the Justice Dept's lawsuit, seems to be that this results in a Republican advantage, an argument that I find specious.

Just consider this forum as an example. Several folks have previously identified themselves as past military members or as military dependants. There's you, a liberal, Freein05 - liberal, Beststash - liberal, Spartana - mostly liberal, Storyteller - admitted socialist, and me - conservative. That's certainly not scientific and probably not indicative of the political makeup of today's active duty military, but it at least tells me that the Republican party doesn't have a lock on the military vote.

---

yes, various states have various laws, I guess we all know that. But that is not the topic. Nor is Ohio's voting laws compared to other states. completely irrelevant to the discussion. But a nice try at a diversion.
The topic is Ohio trying to apply it's laws unequally. Period. The justice department's job is to make sure the laws of the land, whatever they are, are applied equally. That is their job. Has not much to do with politics, and everything to do with THEIR JOB. Last I checked, Ohio is still a member of the United States, therefore under scrutiny by the Justice department if they try to fudge their laws. Now I'm sure if, say, Miss. tried to reinstate Jim Crow laws you would expect the justice dept to do their job try to put a stop to that. I'm sure if Calif tried to say only Rastafarian's could build churches in this state, you would expect the federal government to step in and put a stop to that.
Again, Ohio's generosity in early voting isn't the issue, nor is the military make-up of this forum, (however I'm pretty sure if the military were largely democratic voters, the republican legislature wouldn't be trying to get them exempt) the issue is unequal application of the laws, period.
You just can't bring yourself to say this is a wrong application of law can you. You just can't admit that this is an unfair and unequal application of the law. No matter who it benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

You just can't bring yourself to say this is a wrong application of law can you. You just can't admit that this is an unfair and unequal application of the law. No matter who it benefits.

---

No I can't. I don't see discrimination, just an attempt to make it easier for military personnel to vote, which does not infringe upon anyone else's ability to vote due to the remarkable amount of accommodation afforded to all voters in the state.

In the 2008 Presidential election, the percentage of the general populace voting in the election was 64%. The percentage of active duty military voting in the same election was 42%, probably due to the requirement to be away from home for extended periods of time.

I don't have a problem with states supporting our military members in whatever means possible to help compensate for the services they provide to the country. It's a hard job and they could use a little affirmative action on their behalf.

If you believe the federal government should be in the business of ensuring that everyone in the country enjoyed the same benefits and privileges regarding the mechanics of voting, you should have them looking into your states refusal to allow any in-person early voting at all. That is if you really believe their goal should be enforcing fairness.

I think the question should be why are we seeing all of these voting issues coming up since the Republicans took control of so many states. In PA the Republicans defending the new voter ID law admit there has not been any cases of voter fraud.

I think the Republican party should be ashamed of it's self for using such undemocratic methods to stay in power!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

No I can't. I don't see discrimination, just an attempt to make it easier for military personnel to vote, which does not infringe upon anyone else's ability to vote due to the remarkable amount of accommodation afforded to all voters in the state.

In the 2008 Presidential election, the percentage of the general populace voting in the election was 64%. The percentage of active duty military voting in the same election was 42%, probably due to the requirement to be away from home for extended periods of time.

I don't have a problem with states supporting our military members in whatever means possible to help compensate for the services they provide to the country. It's a hard job and they could use a little affirmative action on their behalf.

If you believe the federal government should be in the business of ensuring that everyone in the country enjoyed the same benefits and privileges regarding the mechanics of voting, you should have them looking into your states refusal to allow any in-person early voting at all. That is if you really believe their goal should be enforcing fairness.

---

Wow Alan, you are unbelievable! You keep misdirecting this topic to my state and how many days you have to vote, etc...when the topic is the unequal application of the law. Period. PERIOD.
Of course they are trying to make it easier for the military to vote, as this is largely a republican voting block. And what is the other side of easier? Harder. Why not make it EAISER for every Ohio citizen to vote?
I don't know why so many military didn't vote last time, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because of deployments. I lived overseas 7 years so i voted in plenty of absentee votes. Not only was it easy, but talked about, sung about, encouraged and allowed time for, so no excuse there. The military living in the state are not under lock and key. They aren't slaves or prisoners, as it turns out, and are also given plenty of opportunity to vote. If they don't exercise this right, that's their problem. They don't need more time, just more motivation. And, as I pointed out earlier, no one is going to get surprise deployment orders Friday after hours to be gone before Tuesday. This is a straw man argument. Either let all Ohio citizens vote the previous weekend or none. If the voting laws are so generous in number of days, then they don't need to add this special little gift that is designed only for some.

But I get it. You are for unequal application of the laws. The laws only apply to some people, and not for others. Is this the republican platform cause I'm pretty sure that would be important to know. Certainly makes sense considering other points in the republican platform. I guess you need to scrape that old 'Rule of Law' bumper sticker off your truck. It doesn't serve the purpose anymore.

I see a purely intellectual argument vs. actual application, but in the end I just don't see discrimination. If it was only male military members or only white military members that would obviously be wrong. If ONLY military personnel could vote in the 35 days prior to the election that would certainly raise questions. Since, the way I understand it, anyone who is a registered voter can vote in 32 of the 35 days prior to the election I would conclude that the state of Ohio is pretty accommodating when it comes to giving people a chance to vote.

I can see the idea behind shutting down the voting for a few days in advance of the election just to make sure everything is set up and working before the big day. Across the country it is a popular theme to find ways to give some extra benefits to our military. I support that trend as do many here. The three day deal, truthfully, just seems like a little lip service for the soldiers, but it IS a form of recognition.

I just can't seem to find any monster lurking under the bed because all the non-military voters can vote the week before the election, or the week before that, or the week before that, or even the week before that! I just can't imagine the scenario where someone in Ohio can ONLY get to the polls on the weekend before the election, but not have even one opportunity to get there for more than a month before the election or on election day or to use a mail in ballot. In the real world how many people could be in that situation? Peggy, if you can point out any reason that any block of voters would not be able to get to the polls at any time prior to that weekend OR on election day then I'm certainly willing to reconsider, but I just can't come up with that scenario in real life.

Discrimination and favoritism are not the same thing. Discrimination requires that someone is suffering or disadvantaged to be an issue. Because of the opportunity everyone in Ohio has to vote prior to the election I just can't see that anyone is disadvantaged here. It is true that military personnel are being showed a level of favoritism, but since I can't see how that hurts any other group and I am generally in favor of recognizing their service when we can I can't seem to find a reason to oppose that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Wow Alan, you are unbelievable! You keep misdirecting this topic to my state and how many days you have to vote, etc...when the topic is the unequal application of the law. Period. PERIOD.
Of course they are trying to make it easier for the military to vote, as this is largely a republican voting block. And what is the other side of easier? Harder. Why not make it EAISER for every Ohio citizen to vote?
I don't know why so many military didn't vote last time, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because of deployments. I lived overseas 7 years so i voted in plenty of absentee votes. Not only was it easy, but talked about, sung about, encouraged and allowed time for, so no excuse there. The military living in the state are not under lock and key. They aren't slaves or prisoners, as it turns out, and are also given plenty of opportunity to vote. If they don't exercise this right, that's their problem. They don't need more time, just more motivation. And, as I pointed out earlier, no one is going to get surprise deployment orders Friday after hours to be gone before Tuesday. This is a straw man argument. Either let all Ohio citizens vote the previous weekend or none. If the voting laws are so generous in number of days, then they don't need to add this special little gift that is designed only for some.

But I get it. You are for unequal application of the laws. The laws only apply to some people, and not for others. Is this the republican platform cause I'm pretty sure that would be important to know. Certainly makes sense considering other points in the republican platform. I guess you need to scrape that old 'Rule of Law' bumper sticker off your truck. It doesn't serve the purpose anymore.

---

This is a good example of why I love you so much Peg, that single minded determination to find fault with anything that can be linked to the enemy. It's quite entertaining. :thankyou:


I see this in the same manner you might see progressive taxation which holds some people to no standard and others to a very high standard. If you want to argue an equal application of the 'Rule of Law', you could start there as it affects so many other people.Or perhaps a better analogy would be affirmative action programs which are considered to be perfectly acceptable programs even though they provide preferential treatment to targeted groups.

In this matter, the facts are that every Ohio citizen has a hugely generous window in which to vote in person. A much more generous window than many other states. I believe that allowing military members to be exempted from the 72 hour closing window is more of a way of recognizing the hardship associated with serving your country. You believe it's part of a master plan to deny the vote to Democrats. We'll never agree on that point.

Gosh! I have been reading the two threads in this Simple Public Policy forum that are being dominated by Peggy. Peggy, I don't know you and I am sure you are a nice person, but your posts are full of so much vitriol!

By the way, I have many active military in my family, and they run both red and blue. We shouldn't pigeonhole someone as following a certain set of political beliefs, just because they are in the military.