I Am A Swede

Last episode (number 5, season 3) which aired here this weekend was heartbreaking. I haven't cried this much over a tv-show since Kate Rowan died on "Heartbeat".

The problem is that when turnout is higher, Republicans lose because more poor and middle class voters get to vote in their own interest. So if you care about democracy then yes, high turnout is great. If you care about Republicans getting and keeping power, high turnout is your worst nightmare.

High voter turnout today in the US tends to = more democrats getting votes. That's why all those states that elected republican governors in 2010 were those at the forefront of voter id laws and led voter suppression. I hope that moron Scott Walker in Florida gets beat for the fiasco again in Florida caused by his refusal to extend pre election day voting which by the way all his predecessors including Jeb Bush extended when they were Govenor.

I understand that high voter turnout is good news for the democrats and bad for the republicans. I just didn't think that anyone would be so candid about being more interested in gaining power than in increasing people's interest in exercising their right to vote.

I'm not surprised he feels that way, I'm just surprised he's so blatant about it.

I don't know what the voter turnout usually is in the US, but I do know that here it was seen as a problem when voter turnout decreased from almost 87% in the general election in 1991 to just over 80% in the election in 2006. It then increased again, and in the election in 2010 we had a voter turnout of 84,5%.

A big voter turnout is usually seen as favouring the Social democrats, but all parties want to see as many people as possible go and vote.

Paul Ryan seriously needs to stop talking

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000003

I really don't understand his point, if he has any. What difference does it make where the voters live? More people voted for Obama than for Mitt Romney. Does it really matter where the voters come from?

And I would think that a big voter turnout is a good thing. It means more people took an interest in the election, and that's one of the cornerstones of a democracy isn't it?

http://gawker.com/59...r-with-her-jeep

Republican voters.

Unbelievable! Just unbelievable!

There is now a woman who was fired from her job for tweeting "Well...4 more years of the n-----s. Somebody should just assassinate him!" She was interview by local news and said she wasn't a racist. Then in a later interview said that if the president were to be assassinated, it really would bother her at all.

Well, it's going to REALLY bother her now...because the Secret Service is now investigating this woman.

I wonder if people really realize the consequences that hate like this can lead to. We had a prime minister, Olof Palme, who was the target for the same kind of hate rhetoric from right wing extremists. He was murdered.....

Sure the tea partiers want government to stay out of your business until it comes to freedom of liberty issues like who you want to marry and having control over your own body, where they feel its a-ok for the government to stick their nose into those things. Funny isn't it.

So true!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFORObM3I68&feature=related

I'm amazed at how some people have reacted after the election. The comments that Wales2004 quoted above are just horrible. Where does all the hate come from? What has happened to society when people can actually say such things?

I remember you posting this fact once before. Do you feel specific groups of people of been targeted in your country by being required to produce a photo ID when voting?

I don't think that is a thought that has crossed anyone's mind here. Most people, if not all, would be amazed at the fact that you don't have to show ID when you vote in the US. It's just the way it is here.

Perhaps it's not fair though to compare Sweden to the US in this regard. We don't have the same issues with race or ethnicity that you have, nor do we have the same problems with poverty. (If you don't mind me generalizing a bit) We really don't have any minority groups that could feel targeted.

Religion is not an issue either, since we're one of the most secularized countries in the world. Maybe it's becoming more of an issue with the muslim immigration, but most Swedes couldn't care less about religion.

There have been plenty of stories of elderly people not having their ID and the cost involved in getting that ID.

Maybe I'm being naive, but doesn't everyone have an ID in the US? If not how do they identify themselves when getting prescription drugs, or withdrawing money from the bank etc?

Obama, himself, was required to show a picture ID when he voted early. Shouldn't everyone?

Here you can't vote if you can't identify yourself. Before every election we get a voting card, and when you vote you have to bring that card, and a photo ID, otherwise you can't vote.

Anything is better than what has happened!

Poor Emmerdale.

I used to love this show so much once upon a time.

That's idiotic! The Laurel I knew would never betray Ashley. She was crazy about him for years before they were married.

Why are the writers so un-creative and shortsighted? You need to have some stable couples to keep a show viable, and Laurel and Ashley was a perfect candidate for that.

I love doing these lists, so here are my choices ...

Laurel - Ruined beyond belief. I want Rhona to go crazy and kill these bitches

People I would write out:

Laurel - NOTHING and NO ONE represent the stench of death the way Laurel Potts now does. She cannot stay on this show if it wants to survive.

Laurel: Ruined beyond repair. She needs to go pronto. Preferably meeting a sticky end.

What has she done that is so horrible? I read somewhere (I think it was earlier in this thread) something about an affair with Marlon. Has that come true?

Whatever it is I'm sad to hear that she's been ruined. It just confirms that my decision to stop watching this show was right. I loved Laurel when I was watching, and I would hate to watch her being destroyed.