Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BaronIveagh wrote:

dogma wrote:You join the military or travel, you understand that you may not be able to vote, and if you really want to then you take the necessary steps to ensure that you can.

Just because it's the reverse of what they tell you at the recruiters office doesn't mean anything. The US Military has always had the right to cast their votes regardless of deployment, as long as they were eligible. Previous wars have allowed them a long as an additional 2 months to send in their ballots. Longer for the Navy.

Your response in no way addresses his statement. His statement in no way negates the right of soldiers to vote, or even implies that soldiers have no right to vote, only the recognition that when one takes a job that requires overseas travel that one may need to take extra steps to be able to vote.

Lynata wrote:

Relapse wrote:Gore tried to negate overseas ballets from the military

I know it's silly, but I had to chuckle.

Not as chuckle worthy as seeing a column of troops marching in Couru!

I blush at my spelling.

Is the absentee ballot sent from the state to deployed members? If so then I need to go back over my notes how mail works coming in

Just the same old tricks to whip up the base for election time.

Absentte ballot are mailed out 45 days prior to election day right?



edit
It seems that everyone before was allowed vote before state legislation changed it to just military only.

Obama is so anti military that his campaign even filed a brief in support of the one filed by the military.

I am just going to guess that it was a republican controlled legislature that changed the law that restricted who could vote early?

Yep seems that way. At first the measure was no early voting then it changed to just the military. Ohioans got 200k signature to bring it up again to change it. So far from what I understand its a mixture of three laws that eventually went into "just the military" but the other two laws were not removed. Its....confusing

Remedy like some said already. "Reset" back to all. Do anyone of us really want to mess around with votes not being counted coming from overseas.

Jihadin wrote:Yep seems that way. At first the measure was no early voting then it changed to just the military. Ohioans got 200k signature to bring it up again to change it. So far from what I understand its a mixture of three laws that eventually went into "just the military" but the other two laws were not removed. Its....confusing

Remedy like some said already. "Reset" back to all. Do anyone of us really want to mess around with votes not being counted coming from overseas.

Agreed.

Jihadin wrote:Yep seems that way. At first the measure was no early voting then it changed to just the military. Ohioans got 200k signature to bring it up again to change it. So far from what I understand its a mixture of three laws that eventually went into "just the military" but the other two laws were not removed. Its....confusing

Remedy like some said already. "Reset" back to all. Do anyone of us really want to mess around with votes not being counted coming from overseas.

Not to mention that the suit was an attempt to extend the voting period for everyone, instead of restricting it for military. So either someone misread legalize or they just flat out lied.

I'm going with the latter.

Lying to score political points.

Think the NGA and other veteran grp going to go with the time it takes for mail getting into country and to the recipeient which takes...quite a bit time. and takes quite a bit of time coming out. With the lawsuit in does the lawsuit block the votes if it kicked further down the road?

The lawsuit has nothing to do with absentee ballots.

Relapse wrote:I had family in the military back when that happened. There were a lot of statements that went out between bases and units about Gore, and his campaign pissed off a lot of people at that point. There weren't more than a couple of people serving that I knew who would talk about Gore that didn't start out with a colorful adjective or two about him after this trick was pulled.

I know what you were told. The point is that isn't much like what actually happened.

And the bigger point is even if Gore had done something different or the issue had never come up at all, there would have been other lies spread through the armed forces about what those horrible democrats did. Making up silly rumours about how mean Democrats are to the military is what the military does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Relapse is right. If this plays out. How many here remember that. Or does everyone remember the "Chads" only

I not only remembered, I remembered what actually happened. Which Relapse didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Meh hypocrisy on all sides including my own.

That is true, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:I still remember the news going over this as well, and Gore did not come off looking good over the whole situation.

Sure, because 'Gore denies military their votes' is much easier to proces than 'Gore requires votes received after election and without date stamp to be rejected as per Florida regulations because there is no way of knowing if those votes were cast after the election'.

I mean, the fact that I already explained this to you in this very thread and you still ignore it and run with the story you like to have in your head kind of proves that.

Jihadin wrote:Think the NGA and other veteran grp going to go with the time it takes for mail getting into country and to the recipeient which takes...quite a bit time. and takes quite a bit of time coming out. With the lawsuit in does the lawsuit block the votes if it kicked further down the road?

The lawsuit is not blocking any votes, it's extending the period for non military to be the same as military, like I said either some people are idiots or some people are liars. Though it's usually best to not attribute to malice what cab be attributed to stupidity

BaronIveagh wrote:
Just because it's the reverse of what they tell you at the recruiters office doesn't mean anything. The US Military has always had the right to cast their votes regardless of deployment, as long as they were eligible.

The right to cast does not mean the right to be counted.

AustonT wrote:
You don't give up the right to vote when you join the military. Comparing it to a vacation is obtuse and you know it.

We're not talking about rights, we're talking about, effectively, privileges. Service members abroad know it takes mail longer to reach the US. They're not being denied a right to vote, they're being extended a privilege that, honestly, I would find condescending; as if they couldn't figure out when their votes needed to be in.

But, as I said above, extend the same date to all.

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:I had family in the military back when that happened. There were a lot of statements that went out between bases and units about Gore, and his campaign pissed off a lot of people at that point. There weren't more than a couple of people serving that I knew who would talk about Gore that didn't start out with a colorful adjective or two about him after this trick was pulled.

I know what you were told. The point is that isn't much like what actually happened.

And the bigger point is even if Gore had done something different or the issue had never come up at all, there would have been other lies spread through the armed forces about what those horrible democrats did. Making up silly rumours about how mean Democrats are to the military is what the military does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Relapse is right. If this plays out. How many here remember that. Or does everyone remember the "Chads" only

I not only remembered, I remembered what actually happened. Which Relapse didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Meh hypocrisy on all sides including my own.

That is true, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:I still remember the news going over this as well, and Gore did not come off looking good over the whole situation.

Sure, because 'Gore denies military their votes' is much easier to proces than 'Gore requires votes received after election and without date stamp to be rejected as per Florida regulations because there is no way of knowing if those votes were cast after the election'.

I mean, the fact that I already explained this to you in this very thread and you still ignore it and run with the story you like to have in your head kind of proves that.

I was just quoting history on how people felt and what the fallout was.

Wasn't it Santorum who tried to invoke "truthiness" and how what you feel is more important than what is actually true.

d-usa wrote:Wasn't it Santorum who tried to invoke "truthiness" and how what you feel is more important than what is actually true.

Actually, I'm fairly confident that it was Oprah. Common mistake, I'm sure.

Ouze wrote:

d-usa wrote:Wasn't it Santorum who tried to invoke "truthiness" and how what you feel is more important than what is actually true.

Actually, I'm fairly confident that it was Oprah. Common mistake, I'm sure.

I think Oprah just says that when it comes to being fat.

Santorum used it for everything else...

Man, Santorum. Just think about that for a second. Nothing highlights just how broken and unworkable our political system has become quite so well as considering that for a while there, people floating the idea of Rick Santorum as president with a straight face.

To be fair, they pushed the "anybody but Romney" for a long time and even Herman Cain was a viable alternative in their minds for a long time.

And now they have to keep a straight face trying to pretend they like Romney.

d-usa wrote:To be fair, they pushed the "anybody but Romney" for a long time and even Herman Cain was a viable alternative in their minds for a long time.

And now they have to keep a straight face trying to pretend they like Romney.

I feel that HERMAN CAIN'S! name must be typed in all caps and with an exclamation point for emphasis, otherwise it might imply that he was a completely sane and rational person

Relapse wrote:I was just quoting history on how people felt and what the fallout was.

Fair enough, and I think that's a perception the Obama campaign would be very aware of. But that it's also worth keeping in mind that no matter what Democrats do or don't do to disaffect the military, there will be a lot of stories around about how mean the Democrats are, and lots of soldiers will line up to believe them.

I mean, do you remember the one about the Clintons getting servicemen to act as waiters. Total bs, but passed on for years.

And at the same time did you ever hear about McCain arguing to defund the GI Bill, because he was worried that having generous benefits on exit was leading to too many soldiers leaving the army. Well that one is actually true, but you don't see it repeated among soldiers... because, of course, McCain is a Republican.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:Wasn't it Santorum who tried to invoke "truthiness" and how what you feel is more important than what is actually true.

Well, it was Colbert originally, but it wouldn't surprise me if Santorum took it up in seriousness.

That guy kind of was like a walking parody of the religious right that people somehow took seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:Man, Santorum. Just think about that for a second. Nothing highlights just how broken and unworkable our political system has become quite so well as considering that for a while there, people floating the idea of Rick Santorum as president with a straight face.

I think it says a lot about how desperately people wanted to not vote for Romney.

And at the same time did you ever hear about McCain arguing to defund the GI Bill, because he was worried that having generous benefits on exit was leading to too many soldiers leaving the army. Well that one is actually true, but you don't see it repeated among soldiers... because, of course, McCain is a Republican.

80K for three years of service. Yep I vote that sucker down myself. That pissed off a lot of soldiers with time in the Army and joe smoe coming off the street getting 80K the in eds. It wasn't against McCain we were mad at.

edit
The new GI Bill was also loaded with "pork" and pet project funding in the bill. The "do over" was Post 9/11 GI Bill which everyone can enroll into regardless of time in service and can also be transfered to a family member

So, let me see if I have that right. McCain was against the bill because it had too much pork, which you agreed with. They then larded the bill up even more by adding transferability to it, which McCain then supported (He was against it before he was for it!), which presumably you also support.

He then didn't bother to show up to vote for it - the only other senator who didn't had recently had brain surgery.

So, of course you don't hold it against him because.... why, exactly?

People love the ability to transfer their VA benefits. You can put a kid through a reasonably priced college program on it and he/she will graduate with no loan debt.

I think this may be the first time I've heard the Post 9/11 GI referred to negatively.

Because when the bill pass it was in its "pure" form dealing strictly with VA education benefits for all service member.That was the other "beef" McCain had about the bill

As for McCain not being there to vote for it or going AWOL to vote for it why would that one action make me turn against him?

edit
WHen the bill first came about it favored those coming in. That I was against. When the final version came out I had no issue with it. I was not being negative about the final version Monster Rain. I was negative towards the initial version. Everyone in Afghanistan was glued on this topic in '08 and was really negative towards the intital version

Step 1: Attempt to disenfranchise voters that will likely vote against the Republican Party.

Step 2: Defend this by yelling about voter fraud.

Step 3: Ignore anyone that points out that voter fraud is almost nonexistent.

Step 4: Put your fingers into your hears and scream when someone points out the hypocrisy of the party of small government's attempt to use government to make it more difficult for a person to exercise their constitutional right to vote, despite there being no evidence for any of the proposed justifications for this attempt to disenfranchise.

Step 5: Really seriously ignore fellow Republicans who come out and admit that yes, this is being done in an attempt to depress African American voters.

Step 6: Manufacture a scandal wherein Obama's attempt to increase voting rights have now become an attempt to hurt the most beautiful, virginal, and sacred of all things: our glorious fighting men and women in the military.

Step 7: Get irritated and upset when called out on this stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.

Step 8: Never, ever say anything good about Mitt Romney because lol that guy is just the worst and everyone knows it.

Title fixed.

Personal insults from two people deleted. Knock it off.