Leak: AP Article To Come Out in Hours Showing Republicans Have 10% Lead in Early Voting!!

[TooTall]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Fact: Ten members of Congress have a net worth more than $40 million — and seven of them are Democrats.

 

[Siete]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Fact: Ten members of Congress have a net worth more than $40 million — and seven of them are Democrats.

so F'n what?

and your point is ?

dems are better at making big bucks ?

yeah, you're right.

Cya

 

[NLT]

Nothing is going to change except the names...

Ah yes. The excuses come out:
-It was gerrymandering
-It was vote suppression among minorities
-It wasnt significant
-At the point what difference does it make?
-It is really a defeat for the GOP.

Watch these phrases get posted here for the next 2 months.

See 2008 22008 2010 and 2012....nothing will change but the names...2016 you may see it swing back....then what? Oh you will be making excuses like you always do.

Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation as usual. Dont you have some toilets to clean, get to it joe dirt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's see I've put three DIFFERENT links that back up the OP.....hmmmmm some outlandish lie there, LMAO. Bunch more links but I figure even stupid people get the point after three.


Oh well, I'll add another one, LOL...

Dem turnout effort can t turn tide Fox News

North Carolina early voting:

47.8% Democrat

31.8% Republican

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...d-good-news-for-democrats.html?abt=0002&abg=0

Iowa early voting:

In Iowa, figures provided by state election officials showed Democrats had cast about 41 percent of the early vote, Republicans about 39 percent and independents nearly 20 percent.

Early Votes Exceed 15 Million but Who Benefits - ABC News

Louisiana early voting:

Democrat 52.6%

Republican 33.8%

2014 early vote - United States Elections Project

So that cancels out whatever 3 you posted.

Still want to claim that the GOP is leading by 10% in early voting?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Stop crying

SOB! I've been called a cry baby. I'm crushed and don't know how I will be able to face anyone on this board again. SOB, SOB, SOB.

Phew, I'm all better now, all it took was to take a moment to consider the source.

Thus, I shall repeat my belief, based on facts which even the source cannot dispute;

The Supreme Court, or more accurately, five members of the Supreme Court, have 'passed' a law (wait, isn't that the province of The Congress?) making money, many times from an obscure or even unknowable source, the great un-equalizer.

Only a liar or a complete idiot (we have both on this forum, and many who post on this message board are both) believes all those print, radio and TV ads have no impact on the voters, If that is true, and I doubt anyone is foolish enough to argue it is not) than it is not too difficult to understand those with the most money have the most influence.

Some with the most money are not greedy, lustful and dishonest, some are. Some don't lust for power, some do. Hence, it is always a good policy to follow the money, but that is not all, we must also know the source. Here's the rub, if the source is obscured or hidden it most likely came from those with an agenda to hide.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's see I've put three DIFFERENT links that back up the OP.....hmmmmm some outlandish lie there, LMAO. Bunch more links but I figure even stupid people get the point after three.


Oh well, I'll add another one, LOL...

Dem turnout effort can t turn tide Fox News

North Carolina early voting:

47.8% Democrat

31.8% Republican

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...d-good-news-for-democrats.html?abt=0002&abg=0

Iowa early voting:

In Iowa, figures provided by state election officials showed Democrats had cast about 41 percent of the early vote, Republicans about 39 percent and independents nearly 20 percent.

Early Votes Exceed 15 Million but Who Benefits - ABC News

Louisiana early voting:

Democrat 52.6%

Republican 33.8%

2014 early vote - United States Elections Project

So that cancels out whatever 3 you posted.

Still want to claim that the GOP is leading by 10% in early voting?

Just because someone voted early doesn't mean they will vote their party
Democrats aren't in love with obama as much as they use to be.

 

[TooTall]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Stop crying

SOB! I've been called a cry baby. I'm crushed and don't know how I will be able to face anyone on this board again. SOB, SOB, SOB.

Phew, I'm all better now, all it took was to take a moment to consider the source.

Thus, I shall repeat my belief, based on facts which even the source cannot dispute;

The Supreme Court, or more accurately, five members of the Supreme Court, have 'passed' a law (wait, isn't that the province of The Congress?) making money, many times from an obscure or even unknowable source, the great un-equalizer.

Only a liar or a complete idiot (we have both on this forum, and many who post on this message board are both) believes all those print, radio and TV ads have no impact on the voters, If that is true, and I doubt anyone is foolish enough to argue it is not) than it is not too difficult to understand those with the most money have the most influence.

Some with the most money are not greedy, lustful and dishonest, some are. Some don't lust for power, some do. Hence, it is always a good policy to follow the money, but that is not all, we must also know the source. Here's the rub, if the source is obscured or hidden it most likely came from those with an agenda to hide.

The answer to your question is pretty basic. The Supreme Court does not make laws, they rule on whether or not the law is Constitutional. Here is part of the decision I think you are referring to.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

 

[Wry Catcher]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Fact: Ten members of Congress have a net worth more than $40 million — and seven of them are Democrats.

How do they vote? Isn't that the issue? Are they obstructionists like McConnell and Boehner? Do they receive a larger percentage of 'campaign donations' (i.e. bribes) from left wing or right wing sources?

Do they talk the talk and walk the other way? Your "fact" proves nothing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Stop crying

SOB! I've been called a cry baby. I'm crushed and don't know how I will be able to face anyone on this board again. SOB, SOB, SOB.

Phew, I'm all better now, all it took was to take a moment to consider the source.

Thus, I shall repeat my belief, based on facts which even the source cannot dispute;

The Supreme Court, or more accurately, five members of the Supreme Court, have 'passed' a law (wait, isn't that the province of The Congress?) making money, many times from an obscure or even unknowable source, the great un-equalizer.

Only a liar or a complete idiot (we have both on this forum, and many who post on this message board are both) believes all those print, radio and TV ads have no impact on the voters, If that is true, and I doubt anyone is foolish enough to argue it is not) than it is not too difficult to understand those with the most money have the most influence.

Some with the most money are not greedy, lustful and dishonest, some are. Some don't lust for power, some do. Hence, it is always a good policy to follow the money, but that is not all, we must also know the source. Here's the rub, if the source is obscured or hidden it most likely came from those with an agenda to hide.

The answer to your question is pretty basic. The Supreme Court does not make laws, they rule on whether or not the law is Constitutional. Here is part of the decision I think you are referring to.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

Thanks for the civics lesson, now I'll offer a lesson in English:

I wrote: "The Supreme Court, or more accurately, five members of the Supreme Court, have 'passed' a law ...; see the single quote marks around the word passed? Doing so modifies the word which means I used the word in a different sense then its normal usage.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are bumping your hypocrisy, for calling you out, and all you can do is keep burbling.

Now, shush, the adults are talking.

Whose hypocrisy are you burbling about?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Anonymous speech in the form of political ads in print, radio and tv allow a greater voice to those with the gold. It's really that simple. Only liars and fools believe otherwise.

Only liars and fools believe a greater voice has no impact on elections.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Stop crying

SOB! I've been called a cry baby. I'm crushed and don't know how I will be able to face anyone on this board again. SOB, SOB, SOB.

Phew, I'm all better now, all it took was to take a moment to consider the source.

Thus, I shall repeat my belief, based on facts which even the source cannot dispute;

The Supreme Court, or more accurately, five members of the Supreme Court, have 'passed' a law (wait, isn't that the province of The Congress?) making money, many times from an obscure or even unknowable source, the great un-equalizer.

Only a liar or a complete idiot (we have both on this forum, and many who post on this message board are both) believes all those print, radio and TV ads have no impact on the voters, If that is true, and I doubt anyone is foolish enough to argue it is not) than it is not too difficult to understand those with the most money have the most influence.

Some with the most money are not greedy, lustful and dishonest, some are. Some don't lust for power, some do. Hence, it is always a good policy to follow the money, but that is not all, we must also know the source. Here's the rub, if the source is obscured or hidden it most likely came from those with an agenda to hide.

The answer to your question is pretty basic. The Supreme Court does not make laws, they rule on whether or not the law is Constitutional. Here is part of the decision I think you are referring to.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

Court decisions are in fact called 'case law' so it isn't entirely inaccurate to say they make laws.

 

[sealybobo]

Really bad sign for Democrats. Early voting is one of the few things they're good at.

The official report is due out in a few hours.

Just remember how wrong your polls were about Romney. And a week ago in Michigan they said Rick Snyder was 8 points ahead and now its a dead even race.

The only reason Republicans will win is because historically most Americans don't show up for midterm elections. Why? Because they are dumb.

 

[Iceweasel]

The only reason Republicans will win is because historically most Americans don't show up for midterm elections. Why? Because they are dumb.

Electing a community organizer is dumb. Now we know why.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The only reason Republicans will win is because historically most Americans don't show up for midterm elections. Why? Because they are dumb.

Electing a community organizer is dumb. Now we know why.

Really, why? o

 

[TooTall]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Fact: Ten members of Congress have a net worth more than $40 million — and seven of them are Democrats.

How do they vote? Isn't that the issue? Are they obstructionists like McConnell and Boehner? Do they receive a larger percentage of 'campaign donations' (i.e. bribes) from left wing or right wing sources?

Do they talk the talk and walk the other way? Your "fact" proves nothing.

The Senators vote the way Reid tells them to when he allows a vote and the Congressmen vote the way Pelosi tells them to. They are all left wing or they wouldn't be Democrats, and I don't even have to look it up.

 

[TooTall]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Stop crying

SOB! I've been called a cry baby. I'm crushed and don't know how I will be able to face anyone on this board again. SOB, SOB, SOB.

Phew, I'm all better now, all it took was to take a moment to consider the source.

Thus, I shall repeat my belief, based on facts which even the source cannot dispute;

The Supreme Court, or more accurately, five members of the Supreme Court, have 'passed' a law (wait, isn't that the province of The Congress?) making money, many times from an obscure or even unknowable source, the great un-equalizer.



Only a liar or a complete idiot (we have both on this forum, and many who post on this message board are both) believes all those print, radio and TV ads have no impact on the voters, If that is true, and I doubt anyone is foolish enough to argue it is not) than it is not too difficult to understand those with the most money have the most influence.

Some with the most money are not greedy, lustful and dishonest, some are. Some don't lust for power, some do. Hence, it is always a good policy to follow the money, but that is not all, we must also know the source. Here's the rub, if the source is obscured or hidden it most likely came from those with an agenda to hide.

The answer to your question is pretty basic. The Supreme Court does not make laws, they rule on whether or not the law is Constitutional. Here is part of the decision I think you are referring to.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

Thanks for the civics lesson, now I'll offer a lesson in English:

I wrote: "The Supreme Court, or more accurately, five members of the Supreme Court, have 'passed' a law ...; see the single quote marks around the word passed? Doing so modifies the word which means I used the word in a different sense then its normal usage.

How very clever of you. That' was not taught in any English class that I took. It is good to know that they didn't 'pass' a law.

 

[francoHFW]

What will be, will be. A nation gets the government it deserves. If Boehner and McConnell become leaders (so to speak) we will have effectively turned the corner and become a Plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Fact: Ten members of Congress have a net worth more than $40 million — and seven of them are Democrats.

How do they vote? Isn't that the issue? Are they obstructionists like McConnell and Boehner? Do they receive a larger percentage of 'campaign donations' (i.e. bribes) from left wing or right wing sources?

Do they talk the talk and walk the other way? Your "fact" proves nothing.

The Senators vote the way Reid tells them to when he allows a vote and the Congressmen vote the way Pelosi tells them to. They are all left wing or they wouldn't be Democrats, and I don't even have to look it up.

The only person not allowing votes that would PASS is Boehner...read something.

 

[Iceweasel]

The only reason Republicans will win is because historically most Americans don't show up for midterm elections. Why? Because they are dumb.

Electing a community organizer is dumb. Now we know why.

Really, why? o

How far up your rear would it need to go for you to see it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only reason Republicans will win is because historically most Americans don't show up for midterm elections. Why? Because they are dumb.

Electing a community organizer is dumb. Now we know why.

Really, why? o

How far up your rear would it need to go for you to see it?

The fact that people like you didn't like the election of a liberal Democratic president is the whole point of electing liberal Democrats president.