Obama campaign files suit over ‘voter-foreclosure’ plans

justjohn123…you've missed several points and the BIG picture. 1) the mailings are marked “do not forward” (this shows an intention of not wanting to actually contact the resident with further instructions to assist them…how's that for morals and integrity). 2) the Michigan law provides for a 60-day “buffer”

and the BIG picture…any non-biased person would agree that this unfairly targets the lower/middle class and I would even be willing to bet a week's paycheck that the letters also target a certain demographic within certain districts.

also…the assertion here is to protect against voter fraud. so does this tactic help ( (i.e. prevent double voting) or does it hender (i.e. blacklist legitimate voters).

justjohn youre a typical republican. It frightens me the way you react and respond to this. and it saddens me that its so common in republicans (and in americans). facts can be shoved down your throat all day and night and you will either refuse to believe them or even acknowledge them.

Facts of the story are very cut and dry. In michigan you can lose your home and still vote from your OLD precinct for 60 days. In michigan you can reside at your home even after foreclosure. Republicans mailed letters out in an attempt to challenge voters who were foreclosed on. There are very few reasons to do this as there are other measures in place to stop voter fraud.

Your first argument was that this is a valid noble tactic to stop voter fraud.There are very few reasons to do this as there are other measures in place to stop voter fraud. But lets believe for a minute that the gop is really doing this to stop voter fraud. why target voters who were foreclosed on? and is it not suspicious to you in the slightest that these people are also likely democrats (not to mention poor). No matter what party you are this is something you should be angry about.

your next trick is implying that Democrats would stoop as low as republicans to win an election. True or not does this really justify the tactic? What difference does this make. If I stab someone to death does it make me less wrong than the guy that shot someone to death?

Then you dismissively say you shouldnt vote in a precinct you dont live in. which has been pointed out several times is perfectly legal for 60 days

Well then you imply that this wouldn't even affect democrats more than republicans by saying we're acting like only low income democrats get foreclosed on (completely irrelevant.. not to mention the fact you directly contradicted yourself in saying “Do you think Obama is suing for your rights? He wouldn't care at all (and neither would the GOP for that matter) if those votes weren't statistically in his favor.”)

well when thats shot down you go back to “Wouldn't it be voter fraud if a person voted in a pricinct that he/she did not live in” which for the last time.. IS NOT TRUE FOR 60 DAYS IT IS ONLY FRAUD IF THEY VOTE IN TWO PRECINCTS.

I have no doubt if this were a story about democrats disenfranchising republicans you would be parading around here shouting that obama is just more of the same.

It boggles me. Youre arguing nothing. Youre arguing it with nothing. You imply but never name your points. after all its much more convenient to imply something and have people make their own conclusions, conclusions that most americans dont bother to fact check because the implication is so sly its almost like youre outright SAYING something. Dont say obama is a muslim, but imply it every chance you get, dont say that obama is a terrorist but imply terrorists are often muslims and let people make the logical fallacy that the reverse is true. imply imply imply. Obscure facts. Point to the other guy. but whatever you do NEVER, NEVER EVER look at the issue, and address the facts of the issue. Its the republican way.