You can litigate even the most conscientious organization out of existence just through nuisance lawsuits. It doesn't matter if the plaintiff has a case or not, just bringing it is sometimes enough.

To the ariters of this article -

You worry too much... confront the problems when they arise..don't count the chickens before they are hatched.

.

A former president once said..that...there may be 10 problems coming to any president..before the president has to deal with them, 6 to 8 of them might have taken care of themselves. A few other remaining problems might just disappear...when they actually reach the president, only a couple of them remain to be dealt with..Even then, we are the most powerful country in the world, the best democracy, no need to worry...our people have enough wisdom to take on any challenge.

After Tuesday, Nate Who?

jims:

Please define communism without googling..

Yes, Romney will get you a job..the military within a year.

The idea of having electronic voting machines that keep no permanent record to allow for a recount is absolutely absurd. There should be a hard copy record of every vote to allow for a legitimate recount to be conducted. I can not believe that any state would allow the use of machines that do not allow for a recount to be conducted.

As for the issue regarding poll watchers, the democrats want to make sure that no organization interferes with their illegals voting. I personally witnessed one case in the last presidential election where a man came in to vote only to be told he had already voted. It seemed that someone else had come in earlier in the day claiming to be him and voted in his place. Since there was no way to determine who the fraudster had voted for, it means at least one illegitimate vote ended up being counted. The person was eventually allowed to cast a provisional ballot, but there is no guarantee that his vote was ever counted. I find it hard to believe that this was the only occurrence of someone voting in someone else's place. My guess is that the guy had accidentally been listed on some database as being dead so the fraudster figured it would never be caught. I think that this is a far bigger problem than anyone wants to admit. I firmly believe that there are organized efforts out there to give illegals the names of registered voters who have died recently so that they can go vote in those people's places. This is why we need to have a photo ID requirement for voting.

I think that the NJ decision to allow voting by e-mail was a huge mistake. This is open to massive fraud. There is absolutely no way to verify that the electronic ballot is not altered between the time it is sent by the voter and the time it is printed by election officials for counting. It is also extremely difficult to verify that the person submitting the ballot is who they claim to be and that they have the legal right to vote. Hackers could also flood the system with additional ballots to cause problems and attempt to manipulate the results. In addition, the process that they established eliminates the anonymity of the person's ballot so that poll workers can see who these people voted for. This is a huge mistake and may result in people not voting for fear that their vote may become public knowledge. Some people may legitimately fear negative consequences if their employer or some other person finds out who they voted for. This is why we have always had secret balloting in this country where no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them.

Hamilton County normally goes Republican. In 2008, Obama won it when the staunch conservatives refused to support McCain. Yes, every Republican who wins in this county is pretty certain to win the state.

I haven't seen a final report on Ohio yet, but the last I heard Democrat participation off 230,000 and Repbulicans up 40,000 a couple of days ago. I also noted that a number of the counties that obama won in 2008 were lower than in 2008. I do notice that the early votes in most states are down. For the most part Democrats are the ones who do the most early voting, so I'm suspicious that the democrats are not going to turn out on Tuesday either.

Early voting in the US declined from 30% to 22% so far with just two more days figures to be added.

That's not how the math goes. For early voting there are a few people running a polling station in a small office. On election day they open up many more polling stations at larger locations with more officials to help people. Election day voting also takes less time.

You also have the issue with the early voters that they finish waiting at one line, then get bused to another line to vote again and get another $20 for waiting in line for a few hours. So the legit early voters are all waiting on that crazy pay for voting that both parties do.

The biggest nightmare would be a Romney/Ryan win. How are they going to run this great Country when their bosses wont even allow them to talk to reporters. They are not intelligent enough to answer unscripted questions. Pathetic.

Lol, you do realize one of the complaints against the President is he almost never speaks in the traditional method of presidents, which is to address a room full of reporters and answer their questions. President Obama prefers to give scripted speeches, not off the cuff remarks. In other words, if talking to reporters is your criteria for voting, you cant vote for Obama.

Bottom line, Obama wins OR there will be lawsuits.

Folks, this will be a long, drawn-out process that Obama and the Democrats will make history, in their efforts to reverse the outcome.

They will refuse to accept defeat.

I hope the poll watchers are keeping the folks in line fed and entertained! It's hard to fathom, in this day and age, that citizens have to wait HOURS to cast their ballot.

Pigotry and others - First Pigotry you are partially correct in your initial post concerning citing the 3 problems with elections in the past, however, there have been 4 occasions where a President was elected, but lost the popular vote:

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the residency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. This information taken from http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/

Another issue, worth pointing out, is it is possible to become President of the United States (all 50 states) by merely winning in 11 of 12 states, entirely loosing by a 100 - 0 popular vote count. The big 12 states, thus have more say in the NATIONAL Election than those in 38 other states (accounting for more than 2/3s of the national population), thus it is possible for a candidate to not get a single person's vote -- not one -- in 39 states or the District of Columbia, yet be elected president by wining the popular vote in just 11 of these 12 states:

California
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
New Jersey
North Carolina
Georgia
Virginia

Issue # 3 with the current election system is the electoral college selection process. "Electors" are selected under a "pledge" system in which the elector will cast thier Electoral College vote according to the popular vote of thier state. However, A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person pledged or does not vote for any person. Only 24 states have laws to punish faithless electors. Thus, a "legal" coup is possible to hijack an election. In the past, Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector.

Sometimes Electors change their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia Electors acted together in 1836. Many times, however, these Electors stood alone in their decision.

Issue #4 becomes one that truly should make people aware, and ultimately rally calls for our election system overhaul. Specifically campaign contributions, special interest groups, and lobbyists buying candidates and influencing elections. Large Contributions, in many people's estimation, are equivilent to bribes and corruption. One only needs to look at thier "candidate" and look at thier "fundraising". All too often we see "OUR CANDIDATE" hosting a $25k a plate fundraiser. Now honestly, what NORMAL hardworking American could afford in many cases a full year's worth of salary to attend such an event? How many times do we see "endorsements" for a candidate coming from a Special Interest or Lobby - thus bringing the candidate "promised voter gold" in exchange for a "favorable voting record" on that lobby's interest.

And finally, an issue that seems to be a recurrent, but assinine theme is the Voter ID uproar. Let's look at some common sense here. For ANYONE to say a Voter ID is a violation of thier rights, is both a fool and a moron. Simply put, you require a picture ID to drive a car - a driver's license. In order to LEGALLY purchase a firearm, you require a PHOTO ID. In order to legally purchase Alcohol or Cigarettes, you are Supposed to provide a picture ID. In fact people, most things to include using credit cards, obtaining medical attention, to opening bank accounts ALL require a PHOTO ID of some sort. NONE of these things infringes on "your assumed rights", so why should Voting be any different? Another point of fact for those mindlessly saying this infringes on thier rights and the it intimidates the poor poor minority crowd, is actually a way of guaranteeing YOUR VOTE is actually legitimate. Voting is probably one of the most cherished rights a citizen of this country has. It only makes SENSE that such a right is at least as "protected" as driving a car, opening a bank account, using a credit card, obtaining medical attention, purchasing booze, cigs, and firearms. Crawl off your idiotic "racism and victimization soapboxes" and realize a Photo ID requirement is nothing more than what you already have with the other things I mentioned.

MSNBCMFE

I would like to add that I have moved Gallup from trusted Neutral Poll to Republican Poll because right after the Republican'ts complained that the Pollsters were being unfair to their darling, Corporate Raider Willard Romney, Gallup suddenly changes its formula as to how it does its polling and suddenly, where President Obama had a commanding lead, Corporate Raider Romney now has a lead that is bizarre. Gallup often says he is ahead by 5-9 points over other polls. Something is not right about gallup, in my opinion

And this is my opinion.

Does the media really have to pull out their fake crystal ball to foresee something that in my lifetime of voting I've never witnessed? These types of articles are nothing but fear mongering.We have enough apathy towards voting in this country without NBC fanning the flames.Everybody get out of my way on Tuesday.I'm exercising my right to vote.

Ughh, can you imagine some guys come to you and question you like "Do you have the rights to vote?" "Show me your ID" "Which parties are you?"

Like heck I am going to follow what those guys said, imitation and pressure to get votes, the worse kind.

I waited in line to vote in Ohio for 8 hours. It took that long to get back in line and vote again 3 times.

jims-2041711

enough people have died and suffered under communism through the years. it's time to end that now. vote obama and his crew out on tues.

Why? So we can vote in another Neo Nazi Fascist? No thanks.

chanchan

Election day voting also takes less time.

I don't where you live but I live in Idaho and election day voting is a pain compared to seating in my home taking a few minutes to vote.

-------------------------

I. M. Moroni

I waited in line to vote in Ohio for 8 hours.

Don't tell me---Jerry Springer is running again, eh?

Js in SD.

I agree. They should all print a hard copy, then let you review the hard copy before final submission. When I voted I was told I couldn't see a hard copy of my vote, because the machine keeps it stored inside until election day. I thought that was B.S. I know who I voted for, but I don't know the machine properly recorded my vote. A presidential election could be swayed by a minor programming bug and no one would know because you can't check the hard copy of your vote.

I like the idea of voting machines. It speeds up the process. I don't like the idea of not being able to review what the machine recorded on the paper. I voted in Utah, so I'm not too worried about it. If Romney loses Utah, then there is definitely a problem with the machines. But in swing states it makes a difference. This is one thing I might say I agree with democrats on. It should be law that people can see the hard copy of their vote before the machine submits it. Then, if the democrats lose they can't cry like babies. If the Republicans lose we'll know its not due to some faulty software (as reported in the article. Republicans are complaining about their vote being switched. Not Democrats, even thought they were the ones paranoid about the "Tagg Romney" machines. It doesn't surprise me though.)

Another MSNBC fear porn article. Come Tuesday evening all this fretting and hand-wringing will be shown to have been for naught when it becomes apparent that the outcome is overwhelmingly decisive.

I have a suspicion that the courts are going to be tied up on Wednesday morning, but not over challenges over the election.

The courts are going to be dealing with hundreds, maybe thousands of assault with battery arraignments of US Citizens who had one of these tea-party "citizen observers" get in their face and challenge their right to vote, and the voter responded as most of us would ... by punching their lights out!!!

We vote by mail in Oregon. If we still voted at our precinct polling places, and some "citizen observer" challenged MY right to vote, that person would greatly regret ever approaching me and speaking to me.

Of course that scenario would never happen to ME, ... because I'm not black or another ethnic minority (and therefore I would not look "suspicious" to these so-called "citizen observers).

Racism has many faces. And it appears that the racists will be manning the polling places in force on Tuesday. Persevere, America.

I don't give a fook anymore, i'm voting at 7 a.m. tuesday and then going pheasant hunting for 5 days where there's no radios or t.v.....FOOK em ALL!

Robert,

You remind me of some guy who was told he couldn't vote. So he started yelling and screaming and stormed out of the polling station before the workers could tell him to fill out a provisional ballot. All he did was run to the media instead. He eventually got his ballot filled out later. But had he been level headed and listened to the poll workers he could have voted that same day. Instead he ran to the media to create a stir over nothing, and ultimately delayed his vote. If democrats start punching people on election day and get police involved. The polls will be closed before they have a chance to cast their ballot. So go ahead Robert, encourage democrats to act stupid on election day so they miss their chance to vote. I don't care. But honestly this stupid "I'm gonna punch people in the face" talk, is just that. Stupidity. 90% of the people who say crap like that are too squeamish in real life to actually do it.

"Four nightmare scenarios". American journalism at its best. We gotta keep fear and anxiety in the people. Everything has to be extreme. Some say the collective consciousness of mankind causes events - good and bad - to happen.

OK DoucheMorgan -

"the problem isn't requiring Voter ID. It's doing it within a very short time before an election, requiring specialized IDs that are hard for many people to get, and making it very expensive - so poor people cannot get the required ID to vote. THOSE are the problems -- and they are problems because it disenfranchises tens of thousands of people.

So, STOP TELLING LIES and STOP BEING A FRAUD! It makes you also look like a coward when you lie and only discuss a very small part of a topic, and leave out the gist of what was being challenged. GROW UP, SWILL!"

First of all, show me 1, JUST 1 of the things I said in my post were lies? You won't be able to, you know why, because it is ALL THE TRUTH.

2ndly Douche, show me where it is too expensive to utilize a photo ID that you already have, i.e. your driver's license, a student id card, or hell for that matter, go down to the damned DMV and get a photo ID card, LESS THAN 10 BUCKS, or is that too expensive? You use a friggin ID card of some sort to write a damned check moron. And I didn't say it should be done today, but for christ sake, you are too damned stupid to even realize you already have the photo ID.

3rdly Douche, you wanna talk about disenfranchising tens of thousands, how about tens of millions. That's right douche, apparently your intellect is so limited to realize that UNLESS you live in one of those 12 states, YOUR VOTE is pretty much worthless, if a candidate carries 11 of those 12 States. So get this through your intellectually and apparently mathematical atrophied brain. YOU ONLY NEED 11 of the Big 12 to be president, even IF YOU NEVER GET A VOTE in the other 38 states. That chief is not a lie, or a fallacy, or even fraud. That is a FACT. Since you seem to be unintelligent and need to resort to a personal attack as a result of an UNEDUCATED belief, here is a link proving exactly what I said, if you are intelligent enough to have basic reading comprehension, which hopefully being over the age of 18 (voting age) you should have. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege_2.htm

And lastly DoucheMorgan

Well, then -- you and the Magic Underwear Cultist have something in common: you'd both like to live back in the 1820's, and bring women's rights and civil rights back to those levels, where it's much easier to hate on women and non-whites than it is now.

You forget it was a Republican - Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves, It was the 14th Amendment incidently enacted under that same Republican that paved the way for the elimination of the Poll Tax under LBJ, a Democrat. But if INTELLIGENCE and common sense serves you well (which apparently it does not, as you have already proven), you would know that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964), which ended that tax was IN FACT DOUCHEMORGAN, supported by MORE REPUBLICANS than Democrats. HERE is the vote totals for that legislation, taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party.

The original House version: The numbers read: FOR - AGAINST.

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

So AS YOU CAN SEE, supported MORE by Republicans than Democrats. Your lack of education, intellect, and basic history tells me what we need more than a presidential election, is a complete revamping of public education, unless of course, you didn't bother to get that free (tax payer paid) public schoolin...

the only NIGHTMARE I can think of is the ignorants voting for Romney, yep the guy who shipped all of the products you buy show they say made in China, I cant even buy a heater core for A FOOCKING GERMAN AUDI that does not say Made In China, replace an OE AUDI fuel filter, on an 2010, it said @!$%#ing CHINA on it, china is a sore that will kill us

The difference there, Will, is that voting is a right, whereas driving or having a credit card is a privilege. You retain the right to vote whether you have identification or not; you can't drive without a license.

Around here you just sign a big book, sometimes they know you in the smaller neighborhoods, most times they're just trying to keep everyone moving thru. No accusations or problems with fraud that I'm aware of, and we've had some fairly contentious local and congregational elections, about to see another one this year for our House Rep. Still, I suspect the usually elderly volunteers to be as polite as always, their personal politics notwithstanding.

Also Will your numbers actually say that Northern Democrats were more supportive of the Civil Rights Act than Northern Republicans. Unless 98 and 94% are less than 84 and 85 respectively. Kind of ironic. Hell even Southern Democrats were, proportionally speaking, as apparently 100% of the Souths GOP was agin it. And more Democrats overall as well.

Interesting, that. Undone by your own talking points. Reality's liberal bias rears it's ugly head once again.

Not even touching on the irony of telling someone to read up on their history in the same post you try comparing Abraham Lincoln's Republicans to the modern GOP, or even the Pre-Civil Rights GOP. Tho maybe you consider RECENT history inconsequential.

This is all too funny, are you trolling yourself?

"….The 2012 campaign is the most expensive in American history, with $3 billion funneled into the presidential contest, $1 billion for each of the candidates and another $1 billion from political action committees funded by the super-rich, largely for Romney. Another $3 billion has been spent on contests for 33 US Senate seats, 435 seats in the House of Representatives, and numerous state and local government offices.

The election campaign has also been the most superficial, cynical and misleading in American history. This weekend was no exception, as both Obama and Romney fought for possession of the emptiest and most vapid of election slogans—“change”—while both candidates sought to conceal as much as possible their virtually identical plans for the post-election period.

Neither candidate will tell the American people the truth: the next administration, whether headed by a Democrat or a Republican, will launch attacks on the living standards, social benefits and democratic rights of the American people on a scale never before seen. This will be combined with stepped-up military aggression overseas, from the Middle East to the Pacific.

Whether Obama or Romney is inaugurated next January 20 will affect only the details of this political prospectus, not its broad outlines. Both candidates, and the parties they head, represent and defend the interests of the American financial elite, the most reactionary and rapacious social force on the planet…"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/nov2012/elec-n05.shtml

Wrong Capt. If you look at the against numbers and actually looked at the percentages, you can see MORE Democrats were against it than Republicans were. The Totals of Democrats against were a total of 107 Democrats (both House and Senate) compared to 43 total Republicans against it, therefore, since you lack basic common sense, Democrats MORE THAN Republicans were against it. Perhaps you need a calculator, and someone pushing the buttons for you.

And I am far from a liberal. I find that to be a bigger insult than being called a Republican. At least a Republican can find facts in history, unlike those libtard democraps. And show me where for instance, where the stance has changed...

And if you bother to look, there was only 11 total Southern Republicans (house and senate), compared to what, 115 total Southern Democrats. And only 8 out of 115 of those total combined Southern Democrats were for it. I can see Math and deductive rationalization are outside your capacity chief.

And you miss the point all together Capt. And you actually reinforce my initial contention, that Voting being a RIGHT and not a priviledge, It should be afforded MORE PROTECTION from voter fraud. At the very least, if drinking booze requires ID, is it not MORE IMPORTANT to be able to vote than consuming alcohol? Is voting MORE IMPORTANT than driving a Car? Isn't voting MORE OF FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT than opening a bank account, using a credit card, cashing a check?

So why then would we REQUIRE IDs for those other things, and NOT have some sort of picture ID requirement to vote?

And that signing a book is the method here as well chief, the only difference is, HERE you show a photo ID before you sign that book, even though we live in a small community, so that they can verify your eligibility to vote within that district. The ID we use here is our driver license or a Student ID Card or a State ID Card (available from the DMV for I believe it's 10 bux). No different than when you go into the store to buy booze or smokes.

And I also agree with you, in most places you won't find alot of that "voter fraud" kind of stuff in the smaller communities. But let's not forget it HAS happened before. And truthfully, I honestly don't see a big deal in flashing a picture ID before signing that book.

And the irony of reading up on your history is at least some of us don't pass along that party line bullsht, until it is thrust in our faces. If you bothered to read my initial reply, I mentioned NO POLITICAL MESSAGE, other than pointing out the flaws of the electoral college system. But if you want to take it one step further, I certainly can point back to history where future generations as well as the generation of the day was FOREWARNED to Steer Clear of Political Parties. To BE EXACT, and I quote,

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.."

- George Washington in his farewell address as President of the United States.

And look at the country now...

I said more Democrats were FOR it. Are you disputing that? You said more Republicans supported it, that's clearly not what the numbers say as well, more Democrats voted for it's passage than Republicans. Probably because there were more than twice as many in Congress at the time. But you seem to have decided that's unimportant, which is why I used the numbers YOU provided to make my points, all of which were correct. Democrats supported the passage of the Civil Rights Acts in larger numbers and in a larger percentage North and South. You're not using math nor deductive reasoning, I don't even know what to call this reality you seem to inhabit where numbers don't mean what they say.

No one called you a liberal (and definitely not Progressive), I wouldn't confer that honor. Especially not on someone who thinks calling other posters "douche" is funny or something. Your political party is inconsequential, your political leanings are what's important, and they come thru quite clearly in the way you write and what you seem to find important. I find your entire tone...unappealing as well, regardless of what you may support.

Are you seriously asking me how the platform of the GOP changed from Lincoln to today? Is that a real question? Clearly you can't find facts from history. Hint - facts are different from the things you WANT or FEEL to be true.

No Capt, certainly there were alot of Democrats for it. However, look at DMorgan's comment that republicans specifically are against women's and minority's rights, when clearly that is not the case. I was simply pointing out to him that there were quite a few republicans that supported it, when in fact, democrats, especially in the southern states were opposed to it. For someone to say a political party is racist as a whole, is both uneducated and ignorant. It is easy to spout the poor poor race card when common sense should tell you race had nothing at all to do with the initial point I was making.

In calling him a douche, I was returning his insult as he referred to me as "swill". Thus, tit for tat, when my initial post was not, in any way shape or form demeaning. And actually sir, you referred to me as a liberal - "Reality's liberal bias rears it's ugly head once again." thus my reply to you.

And certainly both parties platforms have changed over the years. That is not my contention, and in fact, if you bothered to read and consider the quote I used, you would know, realize, and understand, I am against a political party system, as party politics serve no other purpose than to divide the unity of the country as is more than blatantly apparent in this day and age. I would also go so far as to contend that as time has gone on, corruption is even more prevailant as a result of political parties. One only needs to look at when a Democrat or a Republican committs an immoral or illegal act, the other party is wanting blood, while the party from which the person is from is busy defending them. For example look at Chuck Rangle (D), committs tax fraud. Republicans wanted his head, Democrats backed him. There are even Republicans that do such assinine things, and other republicans excuse or make excuses for it.

And yes, if we use History as a Guide, when Washington was President, the country had a common purpose. It wasn't until political parties became prominent that we lost that united sense of purpose. Even today, you could have a 3rd party candidate MORE WELL QUALIFIED to hold that office, but because he/she is not a Democrat or Republican backed with all that money and campaigning leverage, THEY don't get a fair shot. And no, I am not an independent, but I vote according to who I think will do a better job. Sometimes that is an independent, sometimes a democrat, sometimes a republican, and sometimes, like this year, I have selections for various offices in which I supported all different parties. I base my vote, not on the party, but on the qualifications. But anymore, it is getting more and more ridiculous to have to weed through all of the partisanship, the negative ads, and the "traditional democrat, traditional republican" rhetoric to even begin to try and make a well informed decision. And I think you will agree with that at least.

And my political leanings incidently are that every vote should count. That there should not be more weight applied to a voter in California, than someone in Rhode Island for example. IF there was not the "electoral college" fiasco, every vote would be equally important. I provided facts and figures to show, along with links to the information, that not all votes are equal. My political leanings sir are that we, as voters, should be equally respected. And that doesn't happen today. IF we were, there would be no such thing as a "battle ground state", because every vote would be of major importance to a candidate. Hence, you would not see such foolishness like "with only 3% of the vote in, So and So declares the state of such and such a win for candidate A" garbage. You would never see a president elected without the popular vote. And without political parties, you would never see filibusters or the other bullsht you see in congress today. Likewise, IF we set term limits on all elected officials, there would be no such thing as a Senator with 20 years in congress, or congressmen that have more dust on them than the tops of bookshelves in the library of congress. You wouldn't have, with the dissolution of parties, the song and dance and curry favor for influence oversuch things as cabinet positions. Instead I think you would find the best qualified in those positions, because there wouldn't need to be a "partisan" stance.

But I guess you lost that in translation.

I am in Evil-Arizona. Yes, that place that is, apparently, taking away everyone's American rights. If you do not have an ID you can provide 2 of the following: an Electric, Water, telephone, sewage, gas, solid waste, cell phone, cable TV, bank/credit union statement, AZ vehicle registration, Indian Census card, property tax statement, Tribal Enrollment Card, vehicle insurance card, recorder's certificate, and voter's registration card. You can also use a passport and a military ID. All they want is proof that you are who you say you are and that you live where you say you live. No one is trying to take away anyone's right to vote. Even the poor and disenfranchised have to pay for utilities and with the new free-Obamaphone they should have a phone statement. I wish people would read the official voting materials, that you get in the mail if you are ACTUALLY registered to vote, before they spread any type of ignorant-propaganda.

Mexicans flooding into the United States, pretending to be US citizens, and voting for their puppet, OBAMA!

Corporate America paid for and bought by the greedy elite!!! Stand up to them, and vote against the person of their choice! Don't let their money take away your freedom!!

Vote Obama/Biden on Nov. 6, 2012!!!

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/05/14928532-elections-biggest-corporate-donor-an-enigma-with-53-million-in-contributions?lite

"Election's biggest corporate donor an enigma with $5.3 million in contributions"

By Michael Beckel and Reity O’Brien, The Center for Public Integrity

"The biggest corporate contributor in the 2012 election so far doesn’t appear to make anything — other than very large contributions to a conservative super PAC.

Specialty Group Inc., of Knoxville, Tenn., donated nearly $5.3 million between Oct. 1 and Oct. 11 to FreedomWorks for America, which is affiliated with former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

FreedomWorks’ super PAC has spent more than $19 million on political advertising, including $1.7 million on Oct. 29 opposing Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat running for Congress in Illinois against Tea Party favorite Joe Walsh, a first-term incumbent.

The buy was more than four times greater than the group’s previous largest single expenditure.

Specialty was formed only a month ago. Its “principal office” is a private home in Knoxville. It has no website. And the only name associated with it is that of its registered agent, a lawyer whose phone number, listed in a legal directory, is disconnected.

Specialty is the biggest and most mysterious corporate donor to super PACs, but it is not unique.

A new analysis by the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics shows that companies have contributed roughly $75 million to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle.

Super PACs, which were created in the wake of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, can accept donations of unlimited size from corporations, unions and individuals. They spend the funds mostly on negative advertising.

The centers’ analysis found that 85 percent of money from companies flowed to GOP-aligned groups, 11 percent went to Democratic groups and the remainder went to organizations not aligned with either party.

First Read: Full coverage on the campaign trail

Prior to Citizens United, corporate spending on candidate advertising was not allowed. The decision raised fears that massive donations from corporate treasuries would flood the election in 2012.

In fact, the largest amounts have come from wealthy businessmen. However, about 11 percent of the $660 million raised by all super PACs through mid-October has come from company treasuries — mostly privately held businesses, sometimes organized as limited partnerships or limited liability companies.

High-profile donors
Yet a few high-profile companies haven’t been afraid to jump into the partisan fray.

In mid-October, oil and gas giant Chevron donated $2.5 million to a super PAC close to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the Congressional Leadership Fund, which has aired a bevy of ads attacking Democratic House candidates.

Oxbow Carbon, the energy company owned by billionaire William Koch, the lesser-known brother of conservative industrialists David and Charles Koch, and Contran Corp., the business of Republican super donor Harold Simmons of Texas, have both steered significant sums to the coffers of super PACs.

Oxbow Carbon has donated $4.25 million to GOP super PACs, making it the No. 2 corporate donor to super PACs, while Contran, No. 3, has donated more than $3 million to Republican-aligned groups.

Another top corporate donor is a retirement community in central Florida known as The Villages — a Republican stronghold where Paul Ryan held his first campaign rally the day after GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney named him as his running mate.

Developer H. Gary Morse created The Villages more than 50 years ago, and this election cycle, more than a dozen companies connected to Morse and The Villages have collectively steered $1.6 million to GOP super PACs. That’s in addition to the $450,000 that Morse and his wife, Renee, have donated from their personal funds.

Notably, Morse is also the Florida co-chairman of the Romney campaign, and during the Republican National Convention, Morse’s Cayman Island-flagged yacht, named “Cracker Bay,” was the site of a soiree for some of Romney’s top donors and fundraisers.

Other high-profile corporate donors include:

• The Apollo Group, a for-profit education company, which gave $75,000 to the pro-Romney Restore Our Future and another $5,000 to JAN PAC, the super PAC of Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer;
• Convenience store giant 7-Eleven, which donated $25,000 to Hoosiers for Jobs, a super PAC that supported Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., during his failed primary campaign;
• Hamburger chain White Castle, which gave $25,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund;
• Defense contractor B/E Aerospace, which gave $50,000 to Restore Our Future;
• Payday lender QC Holdings, which gave $25,000 to Restore Our Future; and
• Weaver Holdings, the parent company of the Indiana-popcorn company known for its brands “Pop Weaver” and “Trail’s End,” sold by Boy Scouts across the country, which has donated $2.4 million to American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by GOP strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie.

Only a few other Fortune 500 companies have joined Chevron, which ranks third on the elite list behind only Exxon Mobil and Walmart, in making contributions to super PACs, and none has given as much as the energy giant.

Caesar’s Entertainment Corp., for instance, ranked by Fortune at No. 288, has given $150,000 to Majority PAC, a group that is spending to help Democrats retain the majority in the U.S. Senate.

“Fortune 500 companies are the least likely to be the ones who will be out in front giving publicly,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine. “They want to have influence over elections and elected officials, but they don't want to alienate customers.”

By category, companies in the finance, insurance and real estate sector donated more than $15 million, “general business sector” firms gave about $14 million and energy sector companies contributed more than $11 million, according to the analysis.

Unions, by contrast, have donated about $60 million to super PACs, from their treasuries or political action committees.

The top union donors include the National Education Association ($9 million), the United Auto Workers ($8.6 million) and the AFL-CIO ($6.4 million). All of these groups have spent heavily on Democratic candidates.

Money 'hiding in plain sight'
Additional corporate money may be flowing through politically active nonprofits that don’t disclose their funders.

“I strongly suspect that most of the corporate money is hiding in plain sight in trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at the Stetson University College of Law.

For its part, the Chamber — which collects dues from companies such as Aetna, Chevron, Dow Chemical and Microsoft — has reported spending more than $35 million on political ads, which have overwhelmingly favored Republican politicians.

Facts about Specialty Group Inc. are scant.

Records filed with the Tennessee Secretary of State’s office show it registered on Sept. 26, listing 61-year-old attorney William S. Rose, Jr., as its agent. Rose’s $634,000 home — about a 30-minute drive from downtown Knoxville — is listed as its “principal office.”

Yet the company’s money has made a huge impact.

After the cash infusion from Specialty, FreedomWorks produced numerous advertisements, including one that blasts Duckworth as a crony of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was impeached and sentenced to 14 years in federal prison following a corruption scandal.

Duckworth is a double amputee and Iraq War veteran. She headed Illinois’ Department of Veteran Affairs and later served in President Barack Obama’s U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

FreedomWorks’ new ad features grainy footage of Duckworth and audio of her saying, “Gov. Blagojevich has charged me with the mission of taking care of my buddies, and that is what I’m doing.” But it leaves out the fact that when she said “buddies,” she was referring to other veterans and members of the military.

FreedomWorks for America treasurer and legal counsel Ryan Hecker says the organization only supports candidates who are “ethically right.”

Anton Becker, Duckworth's campaign press secretary, says it’s conservative outside groups who are peddling "lies."

When asked for details about Specialty Group and the source of its contributions, Hecker expressed ignorance, and doubted that voters care about where the money came from.

“We are in compliance with the law, and we are doing what we can to report to the Federal Election Commission,” he said. “If there’s an issue with Specialty, it’s their issue. It’s not our issue.”

Andrea Fuller of the Center for Public Integrity contributed to this report.

This story is a collaboration between the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics."

The House of Representatives will be essentially the same as now after the election, with Republicans in control with about 240 seats.

This means that a vote for Obama is a vote for several more years of 'GRIDLOCK', since Obama has demonstrated that he is either unwilling or unable to compromise with the Republicans.

Unlike Reagan and Clinton, who worked closely with an opposing Congress to get lots of good things done, Obama has made only one attempt to meet with the Republicans (on the Debt crisis), and even then he reneged on the 'deal' he made with Boehner.

With Romney as President, we will at least have some cooperation between the White House and Congress, and avoid more GRIDLOCK.

Roy, your comment doesn't make any sense. Gridlock is a two-way street. IF Republicans keep hold of the house, they have a responsibility to come to the table and legislate for the people, not the party. Laying all the blame on Obama is just partisan hackery.

You need to go back to Math class "ItsSimple" There are normally only 1 or 2 early voting locations per county. My county has over 150 polling locations open tomorrow and only had 1 for early voting, which was open for two weeks. It only takes 14 out of the 150 locations tomorrow to make up for the number of votes cast in the two weeks.

Roy,

Your argument is that we should submit to Republican obstructionist strategy to end Republican driven gridlock? Because if we don't vote for their candidate, they will continue to block progress? That's blackmail and extortion. They spent four years blocking the President to try and regain power. Now it's Vote for Mitt or we'll shoot the puppy. How about we get rid of uncooperative right wing extremists instead.

I won't be bullied by vigilante tea party "poll watchers" or influenced by negative Superpac funded advertisements or fooled by any of Karl Rove's dirty "swiftboating" tricks. I urge everyone to stand up to these obstructionist bullies. An overwhelming victory will show the election can't be bought by wealthy and powerful special interests

I’ve listened to all the pollsters and the back and forth on both sides and the one thing I find interesting is that they keep talking about how many dems are voting early and still others who will vote tomorrow and yet I don’t hear them talking about the dems who have already made it plain they will not vote for obama, a lot of them have indicated that they will vote for Romney.

As to the republicans being terrible people, blah, blah, blah – the NAACP took over a polling station in Texas, moving people around in the long line, chatting about obama and what a “wonderful” job he’s done, etc. Machines in Ohio have recorded a vote for obama, even though the vote was cast for Romney and the same has happened in other states. Romney support signs have been stolen from yards by union members. And the list goes on and on. So, dems need to keep their mouths shut until their hands are clean.

JS in SD- you personally witnessed what? How do you know this was a conspiracy and how do you know the guy was a democrat? When I go to vote sometimes the ladies take a while to find my name on the list and they do make mistakes sometimes. Just saying you seem to assume alot. Good Grief. Everyone knows the heavy handed repubs are the ones that are trying to intimidate the voters. It is to the Democrats' advantage to make sure that EVERYONE gets out and votes.

Most of the info is coming from Fox for ReTarded News and it smells !!!!!

Actually, nbc's most frightening scenario would be a Romney victory, especially after all the time and money they've invested in Obama. When an organization such as nbc abandons any shred of ethics, honesty and objectivity to actively campaign for an incompetent socialist, only to lose is the most frightening nightmare possible.

I voted early last Thursday - Indiana is using the newes voting machines that supposedly tally tally the vote with no way to double check or verfiy how the vote was recorded. I have written enough code to know how to write subroutines that can run along side the tally and compare register values (votes for one or the other) that can introduce a command to induce a bias (simple or proportional) to reassign the vote based on the desired outcome. The number of votes would match the number of voters, but there is no-way to know that the candiates I voted for actually received the votes I cast. Then, since Tagg Romney's private equity company is invested in the same group that includes Hart Intercivic - the company who made thes voting machines I am very concerned. Statements refuting Tagg Romney's investment/ownership in Hart arer technically true because the chain is legally broken through the laundering technics used in this investment round-robin of HIG (which by the way was formed by Mitt's co-partner from Bain.

If someone from "True The Vote" (are they part of the American Nazi party ?) or any other group tries to question your right to vote, do not respond to them, just take their picture and go and VOTE. If they touch you or prevent you from voting in ANY WAY, have them arrested and press charges.

The only way to stop these thugs is to show the world what they are, thugs.

Just to show how ridiculous these types of comments are:

Simply put, you require a picture ID to drive a car - a driver's license.

I don't have a car, so I don't require or have that ID.

In order to LEGALLY purchase a firearm, you require a PHOTO ID.

Again, don't have one, so haven't needed ID for this.

In order to legally purchase Alcohol or Cigarettes, you are Supposed to provide a picture ID.

Only if they believe you are underage. It is not a requirement to show one. I bought alcohol hundreds (maybe even thousands) of times without showing one. It has been very, very rare to have to, and I look younger than my age. I don't smoke so have never had to provide ID for cigarettes. Other people could say the same when it comes to alcohol.

In fact people, most things to include

Well, let's see...

using credit cards,

Nope, never had to do that.

obtaining medical attention,

Nope, never had to do that.

to opening bank accounts

Nope, didn't have to do that.

ALL require a PHOTO ID of some sort.

Quite obviously they don't, otherwise I wouldn't have gone for so long doing all these things without having to present a photo ID.

NONE of these things infringes on "your assumed rights", so why should Voting be any different?

Well, based on the above your argument rather falls apart, doesn't it.

For the record, I'm not a citizen only a permanent resident. The only photo ID I have is a greencard, which would probably not be acceptable (not that I'm voting, I can't) in the case of PA where I live! The last time I remember having to show ID was getting back into the country when I went on vacation in June/July. The time before that... god knows?

@Will the Watcher

You forget it was a Republican - Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves, It was the 14th Amendment incidently enacted under that same Republican that paved the way for the elimination of the Poll Tax under LBJ, a Democrat. But if INTELLIGENCE and common sense serves you well (which apparently it does not, as you have already proven), you would know that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964), which ended that tax was IN FACT DOUCHEMORGAN, supported by MORE REPUBLICANS than Democrats. HERE is the vote totals for that legislation, taken from #By_party.

The original House version: The numbers read: FOR - AGAINST.

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

So AS YOU CAN SEE, supported MORE by Republicans than Democrats. Your lack of education, intellect, and basic history tells me what we need more than a presidential election, is a complete revamping of public education, unless of course, you didn't bother to get that free (tax payer paid) public schoolin...

After reading the arguments between you and the other guy (too lazy to scroll up and check his name) about these numbers, I feel as though I must point out a few things:

Numerically speaking, there were more Democrats (House and Senate combined) than Republicans for the bill and there were also more Democrats than Republicans against it. Looking at absolute numbers here (For - Against), the Democrats had a lower proportion of them in favor of the bill (198-117 to the Republicans' 165-40).

Even looking at how they voted, the trends were similar by region - Southerners (both Democrat and Republican) overwhelmingly opposed it while Northerners overwhelmingly supported it. There are other conclusions we can draw from these numbers as well:

There were many more Northerners than Southerners, as evidenced by the vast difference in House numbers between the North and South; and Southern Republicans were very few in number, virtually nonexistent.

When the time period of the bill is considered, one should recall that at that point in history, while the North was fairly tolerant of diversity and humanity, the South was very much against it. At this point, I feel as though I should note that the ideals of the Democratic and Republican parties have since reversed from what they once were to what they are today. Today's Democrats are cited as being for the minorities whereas Democrats back then were generally against minorities. I bring up the point, again, that there were almost no Southern Republicans. While there were differences in the number of Northern Democrats versus Northern Republicans, those differences were nowhere near as vast as the differences between the number of Southern Democrats to Southern Republicans.

I feel as though the percentage of Democrats in support versus the percentage of Republicans in support is skewed mostly because the group of Southern Republicans is virtually nonexistent whereas the group of Southern Democrats is, by comparison, overwhelmingly existent and served to skew the result. To me, the passage of this bill wasn't a case of partisan support but more a case of regional support (though it just so happened that Southern Republicans were just about nonexistent).

Just my two cents.

@Rob80

You are correct in your statement that most of the above mentioned are in fact, privledges, not rights; with the exception of one, the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

If one were to argue that it is illegal/unethical for voters to show ID in order to vote, then it is equally illegal/unethical for citizens to be required by LAW to show ID to purchase a weapon. Both are protected Rights under the Constitution.

I believe in both cases proof of citizenship should be required, otherwise the system would be ineffective. In both cases, citizens who have been convicted of a felony have been stripped of those rights, as well as others. I'm OK with restricting the types of weapons a felon convicted of a violent crime may purchase, but to deny them the vote seems oppressive. What if they were convicted of a felony pot possesion charge in Colorado, and they legalize pot this week. The felon, in this situation, gets no say in the matter.

State ID's, not Drivers licenses cost five dollars in my state. If you cannot afford it, and can prove that, most states will purchase the ID for you. Even then you still have to prove you are a resident of the state.

An addendum to my previous statement.

We are now REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to have Health INSURANCE, not health care. (two different things) If you want Health Insurance you are REQUIRED by the private and government companies to have ID. Period. I know this personally with the Government's PCIP plan. (they have a website) PCIP, which is scheduled to expire in 2014, when it first came out was the EXACT same plan as our State plan MSCHIRPA, which has been around since about '92. In the beginning it was exactly the same, but once somebody realized this they changed it so you didn't have to pay six months in premiums and have proof that you've been denied insurance for a pre-existing condition, which if you've ever been in this position you know that you have send in the first month's premium, wait six weeks for them to deny you, and another six weeks to refund your money. Luckily some nameless faceless beuracrat, not Congress, changed the Federal plan so that all you have to have is a note from your Doctor saying they have been treating you for a pre-existing condition. Just a little FYI for anybody in the same boat medically. Basically the part of Obamacare that calls for State Exchanges, already exists in at least thirty states, so basically they sold and are going to tax over half of us on something we already have. It would kind of be like requiring State governments to issue, free by no means, federal IDs, even though you can already do that through the state. Excuse me for getting off topic, but the day after the SC ruling I received a letter telling me that I'm no longer part of PPOUSA, but now under the network of United Healthcare, yet my premiums are made out to the National Finance Center, run by the USDA. (doesn't it make you feel warm and fuzzy to know that the dept. of agriculture is handling your health insurance?) To me its not exactly like when Chavez sent in the troops to take over the oil and gas industry, but its similar. In both cases private companies put in all the money, make the agreements with the effected parties and then in comes the Government, and says, good job, we'll take it from here, start sending your money to us instead of the companies that actually built the infrastructure.

Ruckus

You are correct in your statement that most of the above mentioned are in fact, privledges, not rights; with the exception of one, the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

I didn't say that. My argument was just that I often see these ridiculous lists of things you require photo ID for. The reality is that you can very easily go through day to day life without one. Often, all the things that are being used as examples do not require photo ID. I find these lists totally bogus.

If one were to argue that it is illegal/unethical for voters to show ID in order to vote, then it is equally illegal/unethical for citizens to be required by LAW to show ID to purchase a weapon. Both are protected Rights under the Constitution.

I believe in both cases proof of citizenship should be required, otherwise the system would be ineffective. In both cases, citizens who have been convicted of a felony have been stripped of those rights, as well as others.

This might well have been an over thought, but from the above you are saying I shouldn't be allowed to buy a weapon. I'm not a citizen, just a resident. The only differences between me and a citizen (currently, that I am aware of) are that I can't vote and can be deported.

By the way, don't different states have different rules on whether 'felons' can vote?

The other problem is that the people that don't have photo ID and are being required to now get it don't have the same means. That doesn't just mean money, that means being able to get off work when the relevant place is open, and being able to get there. There are also people out there that simply do not have a birth certificate, at all. The real 'cost' of getting a photo ID is not just what you pay for it at the DoT.

will the naval-gazing imbecile:

it seems you are far too stupid to understand that even when the facts are right in front of your face is the simple fact that the SOUTHERN democrats of the pre-civil rights era were in fact still living in the civil war that they lost and still wouldn't accept, those southerners still considered any republican to be a "black republican".

now those southerners have embraced the republican party and still harbor their resentment of all minorities,and are doing their absolute best to turn the republican party into the "party of (a white) god".

ps, why "navel gazing imbecile"?, well if you feel you can call others "douche", then whats good for the goose is good for the gander, and if you whine about it, that proves you are nothing but a lying hypocrite

Rob80 wrote:

This might well have been an over thought, but from the above you are saying I shouldn't be allowed to buy a weapon. I'm not a citizen, just a resident. The only differences between me and a citizen (currently, that I am aware of) are that I can't vote and can be deported.

I don't believe a non-citizen should have the Constitutional Right to purchase weapons. Personally I don't think non-citizens should have any Constitutional Rights. They should have those similar privledges or even State Rights, but not unilaterally granted to all the citizens of the world. We should, and do, have Federal and State laws to grant these privledges at varying degrees. I don't mind non-citizens having knives, (don't have to show ID for those) but firearms are a different story to varying degrees. Pistols are fine with me. From a security standpoint a foreign or domestic terrorist attack is not going to be very sucessfull with JUST a pistol. A shotgun is kind of a grey area. A terrorist or foreign operative could go on a spree, but could still be stopped by a citizen or non-citizen with a pistol, possibly even a knife. A rifle on the other hand can do a lot of damage and I would not feel comfortable giving one to a non-citizen without a probation period and a thourogh background check, do I even have to mention ID. Same thing for citizens but that would require State, County, or Municipal laws (which exist at varying degrees) or changing the Constitution. I don't like making things difficult for hunters, citizen or not, but from a security standpoint one man or woman, a rifle, plenty of ammo and food, can be very dangerous. If somebody has a rifle a pistol may as well be a knife.

By the way, don't different states have different rules on whether 'felons' can vote?

After a little reading, each State has different rules for felony disenfranchisement. I found it interesting that "Except Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison." I find the idea of rapist and murders voting repugnant, but to me it seems unconstitutional. I wonder why no stories on that topic, (from any source) it seems interesting to me.

The other problem is that the people that don't have photo ID and are being required to now get it don't have the same means. That doesn't just mean money, that means being able to get off work when the relevant place is open, and being able to get there. There are also people out there that simply do not have a birth certificate, at all. The real 'cost' of getting a photo ID is not just what you pay for it at the DoT.

First off, one can get a photo ID at the State DMV, the MDOT is a MS State level Department of Transportation, where as the Federal DOT has nothing to do with State Driver's Licenses. Here in the poorest State in the Union I can walk to the Public library and use one of their computers to renew online, of course you have to be in the system in the first place. Also here, you can register to vote at the DMV. Being a rural State this is easy for me living outside the capitol. Some people live deep in the sticks and it is hard to get a photo ID from the Government, but you can get them other ways too. Libraries for one, and they're everywhere, and under the jurisdiction of the State. Not sure if they've all do photo ID, but I'm sure the county Sheriff's Office does. I know that because that's where I had to go to get fingerprinted for a possible security clearance. Still cost money, but so does food. One last point, 'people without means' can apply for assistance with the local SSA office, and they require ID, not neccesarily photo...but ID none the less. Non photo ID would be a step in the right direction. We currently do not require photo or any ID to actually vote. I registered at the DMV so they had my info for registering, not sure what they require. Probably just a SS#.

"deploy Defense Department trucks with “Vote Here” signs, protected by National Guard members. But that plan prompted concerns among some Democrats that military trucks could intimidate voters, especially in minority neighborhoods,"

I think that would be safe and fair despite a past of minorities being hassled, the minorities are used to seeing army folks there by now and know they are there to help.

To all you people spreading absolute lies here, although there is no way we will know who you really are...YOU KNOW...have a little self-pride, sheesh people, don't let the Internet destroy you as a person. Honesty is still part of being a decent human being.

OK Markwillscantapparentlyread - since you are incredibly stupid with pre-civil war era, Lincoln's time, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 100 years later for those mouth breathing types, and especially markwillscantapparentlyread go back to comments 1.28, my very first comment to this thread - very civil, then jackwagon drop down to comment 1.30 and 1.31, where the name calling first starts. But like most non reading dumbasses who just wanna jump in with thier faces flapping, you might want to get your facts straight before engaging your alligator mouth before it over runs your tweety bird ass.

And Robo, you still have a photo ID - your greencard, your passport/visa. In this country, by the age of 18 you will have a photo ID of some sort, be it a learners permit, a school ID card, a state ID card, a driving license, or something with a photo, a DOB on it, and an address. And in this country, if you are purchasing even a car, or doing a rental car, or anything, you will need a photo ID of some sort to complete that transaction. I know in the UK the drivers licenses there do not have a photo, but when you come into the country, you have your passport and your country of origin driving license.

And to answer your question concerning felons, each state is different. Some states will not ever reinstate your voting rights (depending on the crime), but each state has a procedure of some sort to reinstate your voting rights. And just for the record, if you try to legally purchase a firearm and do not have a photo ID, you will NOT be allowed to make that purchase. It is part of the application process for the background check to make sure you are NOT a felon or have been declared mentally incompetent, or have been convicted of a domestic violence charge. IF the gun shop sells you a weapon without that ID, they will loose thier FFL (Federal Firearms License) and have one hell of a fine to pay.

And actually Robo, when you get a job here in this country, and start collecting a paycheck, depending on the employer you either get direct deposit (into your bank account, which requires a photo ID to open) or you get a check, (which requires a photo ID to cash). Either way, unless you live off the tit of this country, you will have some sort of photo ID.

What all of these pollsters fail to report is how many Democrats are not voting for Obama! The enthusiasm for this President has dropped significantly; I have not seen 1 lawn sign for him this season in my neighborhood, and 4 years ago they dotted the landscape everywhere you looked. There may be lots more Democrats that have voted early, but did anyone ask them who they actually voted for? The results tomorrow on how many crossed over will shock you all.

~~If you're not outraged by the direction of this country, you're just not paying attention~~

Trojan horse detected:
Uninstalling Obama......... ███████████████▒ 98% complete.

Paul_W "Roy, Your argument is that we should submit to Republican obstructionist strategy to end Republican driven gridlock?"

No. My argument is that Obama refuses to even try to compromise with the Republicans on any important issues. When was the last time that Obama has met with Republican congressional leaders to discuss compromise? - NOT.

Reagan worked closely with 'Tip' O'Neill and Clinton worked closely with Newt Gingrich to get lots of good things done. Obama absolutely refuses to even talk with the Republicans - he's content with merely demonizing them.

@RW - you are correct. The slight was more of a regional reflection, however, when you have some uneducated dumbass trying to say "Republicans" are racist, certainly the south being full of Democrats leaves alot to be said. That was the whole point of even bringing the subject up. And certainly you are correct, TOTAL PERCENTAGES by party, as you eluded to, Total Democrats in the House of Representatives (248) with a total of 96 opposed for a total % against of 39%. Republicans in the House of Reps (172) with 34 opposed for a total % against of 20%. In the Senate you had 67 Democrats, 21 opposed for a total % of 32%, and 33 Republicans with 6 opposed for a total %of 19%. BY LARGE, especially for those with mathematics issues, MORE Democrats were opposed to the civil rights act than republicans. And the numbers are even MORE intriguing when we combine both houses of congress where Democrats numbered 315, with a total of 117 opposed for a combined percentage of 38%, compared to 205 total Republicans with the total of 40 opposed for a combined total 24%. But of course, according to some igits, only republicans are racists.

And before some other doufis starts flapping here, yes, times have changed. Platforms have changed. The people in those elected positions have changed. But, if you want to know why racism even exists, think about how it is perpetuated. Candidate A is targeting black voters, Candidate B is targeting Latino Voters, that you hear constantly. And certainly organizations like NAACP, the KKK, Black Congressional Caucus, and the whole "minority" heritage month stuff, all perpetuates a "1 upsmanship" of minority. You NEVER see a White History Month, or the White Congressional Caucus, or a National Association for the Advancement of White People, or hell for that matter any candidate "targeting the White Population". You know why? THEY would be called racists, but the shoe sure as hell don't fit when it is on the other foot.

So why don't we stop all the racist bullsht by just calling ourselves AMERICANS, and embrace the rich heritage of our AMERICAN history, being AMERICAN Voters, and forcing the damned Congress to be an AMERICAN Caucus. Jeeze, that would almost be too much to expect from anyone...

@ will the watcher - yes indeed, republicans are racist. The "party of Lincoln" disappeared shortly after Lincoln; the southern democrats moved to the GOP where they were greeted with open arms and have been covered with hugs, kisses, and licks ever since. Why do you think that at least once a week some republikcan says "he;s not one of us" or "he doesn't understand america" or he's a kenyan, "a radical kenyan with a mind set the rest of us can't understand" ? Who do you think they're talking to? Who do you think was at the teabugger rallies carrying the witch doctor posters and the ubangi posters and the pimp hat posters? Your entire argument is irrelevant. Democrats moved the act, democrats were in the largest number supporting the act and those democrats who opposed it are now republicans.

You no doubt for purely rational reasons prefer a tax cheat with a running mate so covered in slime that officials in his own church called his "intellectual" output immoral.

Wow, now it's devolved into "the NAACP is racist, how come we don't have a white history month??"

It's like, bizarro world in here. I mean seriously. American history INCLUDES African American history, the problem is we often feel EXCLUDED from the discussion, we feel EXCLUDED from classrooms besides simplistic depictions of slavery.

The very reason minority targeted caucuses exist is because of that exclusion, and clearly people don't feel as if it has abated enough that they can be represented by mainstream organizations, which DO represent white Americans. They do by default, which is why you don't need it in the name.

STAND DOWN, AMERICA!! Surrender you sheep!

NObama 2012!!!

Obamanos!! Remember Obama's priorities citizenship to islam, the rest get back!! How many of your family members were bypassed to accommodate Hamas refugees? Viva La Raza!!

Ted – do you know if taking a photo of our ballots would be allowed in a polling place?

Lrerg My wife and I did and there was no problems

Thanks so much for the response. I think this is what I'm going to do.

Why would taking a picture of your ballot make any difference, unless everyone does it? It's not like your name is on it and your vote is recorded under your name.

OMG - obama must go!

Pigotry, I'll google Nathan Sproul. Did you see this story?

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/sep/05/state-representative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud/

If you have a paper ballot to take a picture of.....election officials ought to be handing you a stub with your ballot number BEFORE it goes into the box.

With that ballot number, you can verify your vote was counted at the Registrar.

I guess people that can't even remember who they voted for have to take a picture. Are they even qualified to vote?

Great and Breaking news! Well finally what we were all expecting has come to past. Rupert Murdock has ordered Chris Christie to unconditionally fall in line, and make his loyalty clear ,and warned him about further pleasant cooperation with Obama. You'd think Chris Christie was turning into a Democrat for crying out loud. Maybe Fox News Security can send out undercover teams to survail those whom are supposed to be loyal to the GOP before something like this happens again?

Pigotry, Put down the glass pipe and step away!

Candice, you are aware there is a difference between election fraud and voter fraud, right? Nah, probably not - plus, it wouldn't fit the right wing talking points. Oh, and are you aware that the Republicans have TWICE used a group that was committing vote fraud? Pretending they were registering voters, but then throwing away the registrations of Democrats? I mean, if you are going to use a bribery example, it's only fair for me to use an example of the right denying others the right to vote.

And I PRAY some right wing goon interferes with my vote on Tuesday.

Just reading the posts of O's supporters is enough to make you republican,very childish and following to a dangerous fault,please really look into his background ,he has surrounded himself with Anti-American/and Caucasian /anti-colonialist,/capitalism,the list goes on and on. . .Hey it's okey not to vote for him again,he let us all down,let's all pull together and get a real leader in and that's Romney/Ryan,and if they screw up like O&Joe then it's bye to them ,but lets quit shooting ourselves in the foot,
Just found available Meshell's collage transcript /papers as well as the No Whites allowed clubs she liked to be associated with,very telling

Childish? You mean like using "Meshell" and such? That kind of childish?

No, it's ok when they do it. I mean, they're right, after all, so they can't do any wrong.

Honestly, I don't know what you people are squabbling about! The popular vote doesn't really mean anything when it comes to voting for a president. It's the Electorial College that ultimately decides.

Just look at the Bush/Gore situation. The popular vote is obviously a joke. We have very little control over our democracy!

Lame as usual, Ster2 - you whine about others being childish and then use childish rhetoric, then get all huffy because you got called on it. Typical.

I just could not resist a recap of todays news.

This just in.

There are five reasons your vote will be irrational. #1 you are a Democrat, #2 you are a Republican, #3 you are an Independent, #4 you are a Socialist, #5 you are a Green Party supporter, just kidding the reasons start with the following statements.

"Climate change, defense spending, the economy: People may
claim they base their political opinions solely on issues like these, but
social scientists would beg to differ. Our voting habits are surprisingly
irrational, and seemingly irrelevant factors can influence how, and whether, we
vote."

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49684422

Interesting reading and accounts for the fact President Obama won the last election and maybe this one.

Next

Chris Walker that is absolutely true the electoral collage needs to go , we don't need some one else to tell us who we need.

Nobody's Huffy NutJob,must just be you,and again no substance,you will probley never look at the tax returns you guys keep makin a fuss over and when they are provided its "I know you are but what am I " childish yes and we would like for you on the left to take a look when you claim falsehoods and then say nothing when your caught.
Sad NutJob

Poor, sad Ster2 - continually posts the same thing, inferring there are links there when there are not. Yeah, I'm the one caught. Own up to your shortcomings, including your posts, and quit trying to blame me, or anybody else, for those shortcomings.

Romney paid "NO" Taxes for 1996 to 2009, "REVENGE" vote this Crook Out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patriotic: you don't need to Revenge, you just need to vote, DEMOCRATIC, the entire ballot. Remove all of these traitors. As an elected representative, their first loyalty should not be to party, or Grover Norquist, or the Koch brothers, or ALEC, but to the country. \

Every single Republican in Congress has signed Grover Norquist's blood oath, WHY DOES ANYONE TRUST THEM ?

STAND DOWN, AMERICA Surrender you sheep

NObama 2012!!!

Obamanos!! Islam to the front of the line, tell your family members that have been waiting years for citizenship to get back.

interesting. The republicker party, as represented by jims and paul, appears to be both insane and dishonest.

This is msnbc trying to stir the pot and create a problem, in order to hide thereal numbers and the popular win by Romney

Just giving Owebama and his lawyers a window to throw their lawsuits out of.

The AD lies are starting to get Bigger and Bigger... China owns 1.5 trillion of our 16 trillion debt same amount as Japan. That debt includes the 10.5+ trillion Bush left and interest on it plus the added expense of Bushes unfunded wars that he left us with. To say somehow Obama is the downfall of America due to Congress borrowing money to pay for that is more then a lie.

ROMNEY/BUSH Not Now/Never Again

Its all Bush's fault Obama aka Bush the third, did bailout number 2 and bailout number 3(the one that pumps out billions to banks every month)

VOTE Bush out , Vote Romney IN !

Well, that would have been a much better use for the money in the first place. But, it is true that we must start reducing our deficit without having people starving in the streets. I don't know the best way to do it, I suspect neither Obama nor Romney know either. I do know it can't be done overnight or we will be Greece.

Remember if you can keep your mind while all those around you lose theirs....you'll be o.k.

Right coyote vote Obama

as an independent i have been watching bolth candidates and this is the conclusion i have come to ....

1 Republicans said en mass at the start of this presidency PRIOR to any legislation that was crafted that they wanted to make obama a "one term president" this tells me that they were going to obstruct ANYTHING he did ... good for the country or not

2 he has succeeded to craft some legislation despite that declaration and he has succeeded at

A: getting Osama Benlauden dispite republicans calling him a terorist sympathiser ...

B: pulling the economy out of the free fall it was in despite republicans saying he made your paycheck smaller....

C: crafting legislation with republican ideas in it despite republicans rejecting the very legislation they agreed to weeks before PUBLICLY and helping all people in the face emergencies not just democrats despite republicans telling people he is soooo divisive to this country ...

Obama has sevral blunders in speaking and in legsialtion he has signed .... usualy republican led legislation .... indefenant incarseration without trial is one ... but it was added by republicans to the defence budget in the first place ...

3 Romney A:can't tell us what his taxes were when the IRS was catching tax evaders in Switzerland.

B:he cant tell us what his policies are going to be when he takes office in relation to taxes even tho he signed a pledge that he "can't raise taxes for anybody" under penalty of litigation.

C: believes in his heart that " Companies are people too." i don't know about you guys but any religious person should find that offencive ... companies have no soul, no sense of right and wrong and should NOT have more rights than people because they are NOT made by our creator ....

D: says he meant what he said "whatever" he said and stands behind it witch means he stands behind all sides of all issues .... witch is not leadership its not even a proper decision.

i'm leaning O this election ..... since no 3rd party candidate seems to be electable

kimb54.1

I am sure Bush would like to retire after 12 years in the White House. Didn't know he could serve a 3rd term but I guess anything crooked is possible when Democrats have control.

STAND DOWN, AMERICA!!

NObama 2012!!!

Obamanos!!

@Lorax12, I knew who you were voting for the minute I saw your atrocious spelling. It's also obvious that the 'facts' that brought you to your conclusion were all gleaned from MSNBC and other Obama leaning media outlets.

~~If you're not outraged by the direction of this country, you're just not paying attention~~

Trojan horse detected:
Uninstalling Obama......... ███████████████▒ 98% complete.

Trojan horse detected:
Uninstalling Obama......... ███████████████▒ 98% complete.

error detected, wait four years for reboot...

LOL

Or the illusion that it was a race.

Obama 307 - Romney 231. :-)

IF Romney landslides Obama, I see alot of windows being used by lawyers to through everything including the kitchen sink.

Obama can file all the lawsuits he wants, just further evidence of his unwillingness to accept responsibility for anything.

logan, you have been reported - there is no excuse for that type of post. Same for you, COYOTE. Real class, guys.

I want to see rush limbaughs melt down.

Actually, Obama should not win.

He should not have ever been allowed on the 2008 ballot in the first place.

A man who subscribes to "God damn America!!!" should never be allowed to become the leader of the country he is cursing. That's just common sense, but it seems millions of Americans have been duped.

Couldn't agree more Up Uranus (love the name).

Up uranus - Spoken like a true welfare-dependent Democrat. The sheer thought of having to work instead of kneeling and begging for "entitlements" must be mortifying.

Ah yes the minute anyone supports Obama they come out with " true welfare-dependent Democrat". I guess you include disabled and elderly people that see through Romney"s 5 point plan that he won't explain until "after the election" and that it's too lengthy when someone saw it and it is at most 1800 words. By cutting taxes 20% across the board adding 5 trillion to the debt and saying that the top 1% of earners are the small business owners. No small business owner I know are in that income bracket. Let's not forget undoing the savings Obama gave back to medicare making it solvent until 2024 and making it go broke in 2016 again and making medicare a "voucher system that insurance companies can pick and choose who they cover. Repealing the Affordable Healthcare act, that mimic exactly what Mittens used in "his great state" even using the same advisers and as he put it just shoving those people into the ER.

If you can't stand on your own then you shouldn't be standing....I refuse to kneel before anyone...

coyote you may not kneel under romney but he will make you want to to pray.

Coyotehunter: IF Romney wins, he'll tell you first to kneel in front of him, then tell you to bend over. And he won't give you a KY handout as that's socialism.

I guess you include disabled and elderly people that see through Romney"s 5 point plan that he won't explain until "after the election

@TCLucas I am elderly and I still pay federal taxes. I don't know why you libs keep on insisting that the elderly don't pay federal taxes! The elderly that don't pay taxes now probably never paid taxes because they have been on the government dole all their lives.

Armand

You really need to find some new and legitimate news. What you are selling is so full of obvious half truths it's sad

Gov Rick Scot net worth 218 million 2010, 105 million 2011, and 83 million 2012. the $500 million golden parachute is a fairy tale.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/politics/Florida-Governor-Rick-Scotts-Net-Worth-Dropped-Again-in-2011-160918125.html

Bain Capital along with several other investors bought HCA in 2006. This is 7 years after Romney relinguished his authority in Bain in a leave of absence only to retroactively retiring in 2002 upon walking in the door at the end of the leave of absense. In Retiring, Romney shares were transitioned to a non-voting retirement investment.

As for Rick Scott and HCA, there is not evidence that he knew the fraud going on. I've seen good people get fired for not catching fraud underneath their management. Sometimes when you are actually honest you don't recognize it because no one told you what corruption looks like. After you experience it, you wise up a bit.

The Cayamens was a Bain thing. Nothing Romney can do about it and NO it wasn't hidden, it was missed one year in the tax returns when the statements failed to get to the tax accountant.

The Mormon donation is pretty common for church goers of all faiths. Mitt donated a part of his fortune to Mormon church to manage now and keep when he dies in exchange for a tax free annuity that stops when he dies. It is only part of his wealth, so the rant that he paid no taxes lives, even thought he has paid his legal required amount every year.

So?

DB Akron --

Geesh. You can't be serious. You defend Rick Scott? ("Sometimes when you are actually honest you don't recognize it because no one told you what corruption looks like"). I used to think you were just someone I disagreed with, but now I see you are a fraud. #7.1.

"No one told you what corruption looks like".

LOL.

I'm sure Rick Scott has at least one mirror in his house.

@ DB Akron

Mitt donated a part of his fortune to Mormon church to manage now and keep when he dies in exchange for a tax free annuity that stops when he dies.

This is yet another reason why we need to tax churches as corporations.

So Captain Jack Wigal,

Can I call you for donations to help low income and homeless people in our three town area instead of make an appeal to church members to donate to their needs?

I thought so...that is why churches need tax exempt status. I suppose you would like to tax donations to the Red Cross and get a piece of the Sandy money action as well?

Next

Not so Sure

It would be easy enough to allow churches deductions for their actual charity but tax them on the funds that go to the buildings and salaries linked to campaign endorsements. I've got a big Lutheran Church and a big Catholic cathedral down the street from me. They both keep adding new construction (the cathedral stopped a weekly food distribution to make room for a 3-SUV garage for the archbishop's house and made a city street impassable for months in the process), the cathedral's bell-ringing disrupts my sleep when I work late shifts and periodically during conference they broadcast prayers that can be heard 2 blocks away while I pay the property taxes they don't have to. An archbishop in the state recently read, mailed, and published a letter telling Catholics exactly whom to vote for (NOT the lifelong Catholic from that diocese running as a dem for Senate, I can tell you that)

Yes Go O and Joe -- right out the door!

The problem with e-voting is hactivist groups like Anonymous. The government has already shown that they are incapable of securing anything electronic, what makes you think they could secure our electronic votes? I'm all for e-voting, if it can be secured from hackers of any political bent or persuasion which I do not believe is completely possible.

Inauguration has been Jan 20th since 1937. Prior to that it was March 4th. Which is the day the Constitution first took affect in 1789.

Frank -

January 20th is the inauguration.

Mardi Gras is in February.

OH MY GOD! Frank Maunder just showed what I've been afraid of...the American educational system is in such a state of weakness that those that have been through it can't even tell you the correct date that the President is sworn into office after an election. And yet we think they're intelligent enough to cast a vote for the highest office in the land?

First off, early voting helps those who have to work at night and on the swing shift. Second it helps the disabled because there are usually fewer people voting at early voting and they can take their time.

If the Republican'ts are so upset over allowing the people every chance to vote, then why not do these two things.... 1) Extend the Voting hour. On the first tuesday of November, have the polls open at midnight, remain open all day and close at midnight Tuesday-Wednesday. 2) Allow people to vote VIA Internet. Many nations allow it and there is software, very very good software that makes voting twice much more difficult.

But of course we know the number one reason the Republican'ts oppose early voting... By forcing people to vote on one day, they can create long lines that discourages people and keeps them from voting. I feel the Republican't motto is the fewer Americans that vote, the better!!!

And this is my opinion.

Magnum Serpentine, pull your head out of that dark and remote place you keep it! I have been voting on election day since 1968, in the most populous state, and I've never had to wait in line more than 10 minutes. If you like internet voting so much, why don't you move to one of those wonderful countries that use it? Early voting invites fraud, internet voting, even more so!

Magnum, I agree with the idea of 24 hour voting, but I believe the 24 hour period should open and close simultaneously every where in the US. For instance, the polls would open at Midnight EST everywhere and close 24 hours later. NO votes would be counted anywhere until all polls closed. Sorry, Dixville Notch.

I voted early at the county courthouse. I could have taken the ballot home or handed it in there, which I did. I would have preferred going to the polls but I work a 10+ hour shift on Tuesday. The ballots are not opened and fed into the machines by the county until Tuesday. 24 hour makes sense to me, but many places have issues with getting enough people to run the polling places these days and they would have to double or triple the number hired for that.

Thursday will be much better when they are reviewing Obama's huge loss.

P.S.

Chants are for mindless drones.

pjam09

Thursday will be much better when they are reviewing Obama's huge loss.

P.S.

Chants are for mindless drones.

_____________________________________

DRILL BABY DRILL!

DRILL BABY DRILL!

pjam, I seem to recall you using the same type of thing in your posts of the past. Trying to pull a Romney?

Don't bother, nut job. pjam clearly has a bad case of Romnesia, for which there is no known cure.

The only sound you will here is the same sound that a drain makes as it sucks the last of the water from the sink... Our Country will be GONE!

The storm makes a good case for retaining the electoral college.

Votecfor Revenge!!!

Wes Fly:

I must have missed that one... can ya tell me, or give me a link to find it. I really would like to know what he ahd to say. Thanks.

Dream on!

Obama didn't cause the partisanship. Republicans in Congress did.

And we all know what a Methodist is... Just read up on what they believe.

Wade -

The electoral college is called for in our Constitution. If you don't like it, you are welcome to start an amendment to do away with it. It may even succeed.

Times running out,

What a Methodist is? One was Bush, and his presidential center (whatever the taxpayers are funding there?) is at Southern Methodist.

Hey Wes

You must really get off on that whole "loins" thing to post multiple times

Gotta love right wingers and what makes them tick

Like flip flopney pissing off our biggest ally and coming home with the name Mitt The Twitt.

Hahhahahah

Sorry. Sign in stuck.

I had to look up "loins".

And behold, he did thinketh of voting for revenge in his loins, and blew it out his a??? There. That feels better.

No more crack..ers for you!

Yanke is living in fantasy Rush whack job planet

Too bad Rush eats all the food and drugs where you live

Hahahahhaahhaahhaahah

Yankees drank the kool aid. What demented rubbish.

"inpeached"? You mean he is going to be dunked in a tub of crushed peaches?

Yank,

Oh, so that is where Bush has been after he allowed the deaths of 3000 US citizens in the terrorist attacks of 911 which he did nothing to prevent in spite of many warnings, and then for the deaths of thousands more US citizens in Iraq that war that he got started under the false pretenses. Oh, okay, now we know where he has been.

You mean like when Reagan was doing his gun running and then when he murdered all those soldiers at the barracks in Lebanon? Is that what you mean, yankees9? It was hard to tell, as your post was just lightly difficult to comprehend.

Think again, it might just be your guy who may be spending some time in the slammer.

Here are just a couple of possible investigations for you to chew on overnight:

Also apparently in search of how to reply to a post...

Ya know all the Libs replies amount to "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" They can never answer a question it's allways deflected . . .in case you missed it here are Romneys And Ryan's Tax returns. . .you guys keep screaming about them go read them for Pete sake they have been avail for months the lame stream media just keeps the spin and lies going and you guys just won't wake up.
Gov. And Mrs. Romney's complete 2011 tax return is now available below, in addition to their complete 2010 tax return.

The Romneys have provided extensive information about their personal finances, including over 1,200 pages of federal tax returns that are now public on this website.

Also posted is a letter from the Romneys' tax preparer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, which gives an overview of the Romneys' tax returns covering an additional 20 years, from 1990-2009.

Governor Romney's tax returns show:

First, as a successful businessman, Governor Romney has not only added value to our economy through his investment and business activity, but he has paid millions in taxes every year to the U.S. government.

Second, the Romneys take to heart "to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." Accordingly, they have been generous in their charitable giving, donating over $7 million between 2010-2011 – donating more to charity than they paid in federal income taxes.

Third, Mitt Romney has scrupulously complied with the U.S. tax code, and his income is reported and taxed at the applicable rates, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed.

In addition, Gov. Romney has released nine financial disclosures since 2002, which are also posted on this site. There are 3 federal Public Financial Disclosures (from 2007, 2011, and 2012), and 6 Massachusetts Statements of Financial Interests (from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007).

With a decade's worth of financial disclosure documents and the Romneys' recent tax returns, the American people have extensive information about their personal finances, above and beyond what is required by the law.

This site also includes Congressman Paul Ryan's financial information. Posted are tax returns from 2011 and 2010 for Paul and Janna Ryan, as well as 14 federal Public Financial Disclosures covering 1999-2012.

Additionally, there are now physician letters for both Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan, making public their physical condition and medical history. These letters are being provided in the interest of public disclosure.

Health Disclosures

Mitt Romney
Physician's Letter on Mitt Romney's Health
View►
Paul Ryan
Physician's Letter on Paul Ryan's Health
View►
2011 Returns

Mitt & Ann Romney
2011 Return
View►
Mitt Romney Trust
2011 Return
View►
Ann Romney Trust
2011 Return
View►
Family Trust
2011 Return
View►
Mitt & Ann Romney
2011 Estimated Return
View►
Paul & Janna Ryan
2011 Return
View►
2010 Returns

Mitt & Ann Romney
2010 Return
View►
Mitt Romney Trust
2010 Return
View►
Ann Romney Trust
2010 Return
View►
Family Trust
2010 Return
View►
Tyler Charitable Foundation
2010 Estimated Return
View►
Paul & Janna Ryan
2010 Return
View►

Look, he can post the same thing over and over again. He must be proud of his copied post with all those links that aren't there. Special, huh?

I have to agree with you. Obama was the "Divider in Chief." The fact that Obama is running neck and neck with Romney (with all his flaws) is a testament to how bad of a President Obama turned out to be. He had plenty of help from Pelosi and Reid though.

It's also a testament to how stupid Americans have become. We used to be smart people, but we have lowered our standards so many times to be 'politically correct' that educated is not an adjective used to describe us anymore. An educated voter is the last thing the Democrats want. They want simpleton little minions that they can incite to vote their way. They want all of America to hate big and to despise rich, being jealous of your neighbor is tantamount to being a Democrat.

But at least we will all finally be equal.

Democrats, the party of victims.

The real dividers have been with the Republican radio propaganda machine that continually mocks the poor and disadvantaged, belittles and absolutely mocks anyone who is having hard times, derides people of lower intelligence who make bad decisions, spews out extreme hate-filled messages about "liberals" as if it was the most vile thing on earth is to be liberal and care about others and to care enough about the poor and vulnerable to want stable government programs to help poor, old, extremely ill, or handicapped people. And this Republican radio propaganda machine repeats this over and over and over in a brainwashing fashion day after day after day. It has definitely been a major contributor to total intolerance of others' opinions and the extent of division in the USA today.

You must be hearing voices in your head, what Republican radio propaganda machine are you referring to? You are aware that you can change channels on a radio.

Perhaps you've been channeling Barack Husein's BS or maybe you just live in California.

Hows all the liberal ideas working there?

Democrats, the party of victims.

Sorry, Mr. Clown, the voices are not in your head they are hate-filled, angry voices of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity among others mocking the poor and disadvantaged and all other Americans who are not Republican or who they perceive as "liberal" and especially those who believe government should help its citizens survive hard times, disaster, etc.

Yes, many intelligent people do not listen to hate-filled rubbish, but many do and become brainwashed intolerant people who hate anyone who is not a Democrat or who they perceive is liberal and these brainwashed people learn to mock the poor and disadvantaged. What hypocrites!! They claim to be so religious yet mock their Creator and His Created.

Yes, many are intelligent enough to turn the radio dial to something worthwhile, but the ones who do not often become brainwashed with hatred toward the poor and disadvantaged and mock the poor. What hypocrites! They claim to be religious and yet mock God.

You just explained everything, sorry for your problems.

Democrats, the party of victims.

Yes, the Republican party has become the totally intolerant party who hates and mocks the poor, anyone who is not Republican (Democrat is a typo above) and anyone who wants the best for their country not just the richest 5%.

Repubs, the party of the Obama victims. "Obama did it. Obama made him do it!!"

Thankfully, Obama got the economy turned around in a sensible, slow but steady way. However, the bailouts caused a lot of debt, including the Bush bank bailout, but now we have to pay for the debt including the trillions from the repub wars, after effects of 911, the repub unfunded Medicare D and the only way to do that is to tax and tax those who can afford it the most, including those job providers to third-world and communist countries because they do not want to pay wages to pay for the high American cost of living.

So, what are my problems??? This should be amusing.

Delusional ?No Common since ? Brainwashed with half truths ,uninformed ?Tunnel vision? Im not a Dr. So it's just a guess,you should see somebody about your need for someone to rob you and take control of your life though,because that's what Obama is doing/done.
O done 2012

Romney/ Ryan 2012 ! Yes We Will!!!!

Did anyone watch 60 minutes tonite reid called out mconnell and bohner but mconnel did not dispute it.

Now that is a good one, Reid calling out anyone, He should deal with himself, first.

Realist

and the funny thing is that when your gal ran in Nevada Reid won

Obama is not responsible for the divisiveness! This was caused by Congress. If the Democrats are in power they will not work with the Republicans and vice versa. The next election, the staying power of the political group is much more important than moving our country forward.

Romney will not unite us. How can he when his main concern is for the rich????

Bye, bye Romney. May this be the last time we see your sorry as* face in politics. Go do what you say you do best which is run a business, outsource and make millions for yourself. America is not one of your businesses.

Women for America. Obama/Biden 2012!

Poll watching would not have been necessary had it not been for the black panthers and ACORN committing fraud and bullying in 2008.

Right, Farideh, there's never been election fraud in the history of the world before 2--or was it 4?--Black Panthers showed up. I really try to have compassion for you, but you keep passing out reasons why I shouldn't.

2. It takes two guys to freak out the right.

The fraud committed was against ACORN, by the way, not by them. Ah, revisionist history. So sorry to see the poor victims of the right scared to death by two black guys at one polling place years ago and an organization that doesn't even exist anymore.

Who is freaked out? Checkout this story on Democrat voter fraud.

"Videographer James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas caught an official for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign helping who she thought was an Obama supporter set herself up to vote more than once in November.

www.dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-caught-helping-activist-vote-twice/#ixzz28vrrk4Vy

Next

Yeah, that retort has a TON to do with ACORN and those two scary guys. Pure genius. But at least you are elitist enough to follow your redirection posts with "next" or "dismissed" or some other sophomoric inanity.

So in Liberal Speak it is ok to intimadate votes for the right, but it is totally evel to do the same to the left. Liberals ok's anything that achevies thier goal, of socialism.

hush you sound like an ignorant fool

Liberal racist.

Josh, pick one. Can't be both.

Liberals can most certainly be racist. If you don't think so, you're oblivious to reality... Then again, you are a liberal so I guess that's obvious.

Liberals can be racist, their hearts just aint in it like that of the conservatives. Hatred is their master.