http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/17/uselections2008.democrats They're really not messing around this time are they? Is this being publicised in the US? what does the reaction seem to be? Moriquendi
Everyone has the right ot vote unless.......[INSERT BS REASON HERE]. They must of missed a a few pages in US history. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. — Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870) The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. — Nineteenth Amendment (1920) The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. — Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age. — Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)
I know it's there standard tactics but this is just awful. "Sorry we caused you to lose your house but now we are not going to let you vote for the other guy"
I agree with all of the above, Theres no point in having an election if your going to select who can vote!
The Republicans wiped their asses on the US Constitution a long time ago. Toto, I think Democracy is not in Kansas anymore. Works for Kim Jung Il and Mugabe...
I dont know what to say to this purely on the basis that it is clearly moraly wrong to deny people the right to vote on such grounds because they are worried that they will vote for the opposition its just absurd. my view on the election is summed up by a phrase from Mock the week (topical comedy programme in the UK) that said: Mcain ran in the last election agains bush when he was first elected about 12 years ago. so if he wasnt good enough then why is he now?
It worked for Nixon If I was ever denied my right to vote, I'd have to vote from the rooftops instead, and nobody wants that.
Works for me. Those who're irresonsible enough to get mortgages they can't pay back probably shouldn't be voting. Meritocracy in action.
I have 17 empty houses within a 3 block radius of my home. These were friends and families - some of which we knew- who had the ARM mortgages. They left their homes and memories behind. These are the people who need to be able to vote the most. Dreams destroyed by years of Gov't ignoring the working and middle class. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain! John
-I don't agree with the bill, just wanted to throw that out there! -Looking at the percentage of Americans that will actually vote, this wouldn't make a huge difference especially considering most voters can afford to live in an un-foreclosed household as the largest voting population had an income of 50,000 to $74,999 compared to the smallest voting population which was persons with less than $20,000 of annual income. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf -Please don't jump on the Republicans are evil bandwagon just because Obama's lawyers are conspiracists, fraud is a nice thing to stop -Basically there is an obvious need for a better voting standard, and a system that is in conjunction with our constitution without allowing the cheaters, political or citizen.
McCain is Bush Light --just like Bush Sr. was Reagan Light. He is what you vote for when the full fat option is not available anymore. Good point, but this is about trying to specifically prevent Americans who are pissed off with the current government for the economy turning bad on them from voting for the other guy. It's not only those in the lower income brackets that worry about losing their home.
It was exactly this kind of "not a huge difference" that got bush elected in 2000. If this is not simply a fabrication by obamas camp then it is a pretty evil thing to do as Nexxo suggests: first you screw people and the economy over to the extent that people are losing their homes and then you tell them that they cant do anything about it because you screwed them over. To use an analogy its like cutting someone's legs off and then telling them that they cant fight back because they cant reach. Moriquendi
People are not losing their homes in the millions because of government. People are losing their homes because they got mortgages they shouldn't have been given, and they shouldn't have applied for. Joint resonsibilty lies with the home-owners and the banks involved. Why should a group which has for the most part proven itself to be irresponsible and incapable be given the right to decide the future of a country?
The government has some responsibility to regulate the financial market and prevent this sort of problem from growing to the size it has. Yes the (former) home owners should have known better and the banks should not have been lending as much as they did to the people they did, however, given the way the economy works, the temptation to lend just a little more to on a slightly shakier mortgage is huge, after all if you don't someone else will. One other aspect of the credit crunch (as its being called) and the reason that it spread so far and so fast is that banks who made the mortgages bundled them up and traded them amongst themselves. Banks that had conservative or at least more conservative mortgage policies bought bundles of debt from other banks with less scrupulous standards and, because of the way they were packaged, it wasn't possible to know that the debt was bad. This is also the reason that British banks were so badly affected. Regulating this kind of thing is, without any doubt, the responsibility of government ,and had they done that rather than lining their pockets the entire situation would not have happened, people would not be losing their (probably smaller) houses and would be able to vote. Moriquendi
