Wapsi Square Forum

Arizona woman runs down husband with car for not voting: police

An Arizona woman, in despair at the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama, ran down her husband with the family car in suburban Phoenix on Saturday because he failed to vote in the election, police said on Monday.

Holly Solomon, 28, was arrested after running over husband Daniel Solomon following a wild chase that left him pinned underneath the vehicle.

Daniel Solomon, 36, was in critical condition at a local hospital, but is expected to survive, Gilbert police spokesman Sergeant Jesse Sanger said.

Police said Daniel Solomon told them his wife became angry over his "lack of voter participation" in last Tuesday's presidential election and believed her family would face hardship as a result of Obama winning another term.

Witnesses reported the argument broke out on Saturday morning in a parking lot and escalated. Mrs Solomon then chased her husband around the lot with the car, yelling at him as he tried to hide behind a light pole, police said. He was struck after attempting to flee to a nearby street.

Obama won the national election with 332 electoral votes compared with 206 for Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Arizona's 11 electoral votes were won by Romney.

THIS is what happens when people don't understand how the Electoral College works...

Jabberwonky wrote:THIS is what happens when people don't understand how the Electoral College works...

It is more like when people look for an excuse to beat the spouse with a car.

But this woman need some serious mental health screening (I am just frightened that they have multiplied.(Idiocracy anyone?))

Jabberwonky wrote:THIS is what happens when people don't understand how the Electoral College works...

Hey - her boy took her state's electoral college votes...

Fairportfan wrote:

Jabberwonky wrote:THIS is what happens when people don't understand how the Electoral College works...

Hey - her boy took her state's electoral college votes...

Exactly. Maybe he should have voted in California. About 2.6 million times.

bmonk wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:

Jabberwonky wrote:THIS is what happens when people don't understand how the Electoral College works...

Hey - her boy took her state's electoral college votes...

Exactly. Maybe he should have voted in California. About 2.6 million times.

Nah, you can't do that in California. Illinois maybe, but not California.

You could have been in any state. There were reported precincts that registered 108% of the eligible voters voted. I do believe that the number shows a major problem. (unless you are a blind liberal that is.)

Mark N wrote:You could have been in any state. There were reported precincts that registered 108 % of the eligible voters voted. I do believe that the number shows a major problem. (unless you are a blind liberal that is.)

How many of those were provisional ballots cast by people who were confused about where they were supposed to vote?

"Do not ascribe to enemy action what may adequately be explained by stupidity or ignorance."

Seriously, Mark? Are you still trying to push the conservative meme that liberals don't care about voter fraud? The left opposes things like the recent voter ID laws because they are based on an inexistent problem and sometimes stop qualified citizens from voting. Try to remember the last voting cycle it was Republicans who kept fighting against switching from 100% digital voting machines, several models of which were proven to be hackable, to machines with verifiable paper trails.

shadowinthelight wrote:Seriously, Mark? Are you still trying to push the conservative meme that liberals don't care about voter fraud? The left opposes things like the recent voter ID laws because they are based on an inexistent problem and sometimes stop qualified citizens from voting. Try to remember the last voting cycle it was Republicans who kept fighting against switching from 100% digital voting machines, several models of which were proven to be hackable, to machines with verifiable paper trails.

I was only aiming at the 108% number. I said BLIND liberals. My emphasis was on the blind part. The blind (any party) is a person that thinks that they are right no mater the detriment to all. The same can be said of Blind republicans and Blind democrats. To make a world work one must be flexible and pragmatic. If you want to pigeon hole me I am against all party politics. I would love to see a system that people can come together and find answers, not more problems. By the way, I always thought that a voting machine that does not use a provable trace (paper votes) is dangerous and should never be used. Personally I have no use for any party platform It takes away the view from the important stuff and focuses on the piddling stuff.

Sorry if I read more into what you wrote than what you meant. One of the things that really gets me riled up when talking politics is hypocrisy. There has been alot of it displayed by some on the subject of voting security.

Hypocracy in Politics? Surely you jest?

Jabberwonky wrote:Hypocracy in Politics? Surely you jest?

We lost "control" of our political system a long time ago. Oh, well, maybe next election...

And don't call me Shirley.

*Drops VHS of Airplane in the pun slot*

Mark N wrote:To make a world work one must be flexible and pragmatic. If you want to pigeon hole me I am against all party politics. I would love to see a system that people can come together and find answers, not more problems. Personally I have no use for any party platform. It takes away the view from the important stuff and focuses on the piddling stuff.

It sounds like you and I share an impossible dream. I have trouble voting because of the whole "party platform" issue. My last vote for a real person was in 2000...and my last vote (where I wrote in fictional characters) was in 2004. Living in a state that isn't a battleground doesn't help me feel motivated to vote either.

The good news (I suppose) is that my husband didn't vote either...so he won't be running me down for failing to perform my civic duty, and I won't run him down either.

Julie wrote:

Mark N wrote:To make a world work one must be flexible and pragmatic. If you want to pigeon hole me I am against all party politics. I would love to see a system that people can come together and find answers, not more problems. Personally I have no use for any party platform. It takes away the view from the important stuff and focuses on the piddling stuff.

It sounds like you and I share an impossible dream. I have trouble voting because of the whole "party platform" issue. My last vote for a real person was in 2000...and my last vote (where I wrote in fictional characters) was in 2004. Living in a state that isn't a battleground doesn't help me feel motivated to vote either.

The good news (I suppose) is that my husband didn't vote either...so he won't be running me down for failing to perform my civic duty, and I won't run him down either.

The problem, as I see it, is that you'd both be in the same car. That would pretty much nullify running either down. So mark it a draw and find another way to spend the time...

Jabberwonky wrote:The problem, as I see it, is that you'd both be in the same car. That would pretty much nullify running either down. So mark it a draw and find another way to spend the time...

I dunno... if Tina was able to run over her own arm while parallel parking, then I'd think a Wapsi fan and her husband might be able to manage it! I'm not sure it's something to aspire to, but do keep the possibility in mind

I agree about "party politics". I find myself driven by a motivation to vote against bad ideas and the advocates thereof, as much as by a desire to vote for a particular politician.

Some years ago I decided to register as a member of the Green party... whose candidates rarely have any chance of winning. I vote for members of other parties more often than not... but I continue to register as a Green to help them keep their numbers up high enough to appear on the ballot. To me it seems that the "two powerful parties" system has become a real problem... we need representatives drawing from all across the political spectrum, with a strong and credible "center" to actually make things work.

There are plenty of countries divided into opposing factions who squabble over power, demonize each other, and refuse to compromise and cooperate in government. The results are anything but good. I don't think it would serve America to emulate Iraq, for example.

I do feel that people should vote (even if there's only one person or proposition or measure on the ballot worth voting for, or against), and serve on juries when called, and donate blood if medically able. None of these is glamorous, all are bothersome to some extent... but they're all part of the glue of "responsibility for us all" that helps strengthen oor society.

As G'kaar said: "We learned that we must take care of one another... because if we don't, who will?"

Dave, I think you just won the thread with that B5 reference. Yes I'm a fanboy who owns every episodic soundtrack CD, stop looking at me like that.

Dave wrote:There are plenty of countries divided into opposing factions who squabble over power, demonize each other, and refuse to compromise and cooperate in government. The results are anything but good.

Hey, Canada isn't all that bad.

MerchManDan wrote:

Dave wrote:There are plenty of countries divided into opposing factions who squabble over power, demonize each other, and refuse to compromise and cooperate in government. The results are anything but good.

Hey, Canada isn't all that bad.

Hey! I ressemble that remark!
I also second that motion!

shadowinthelight wrote:Dave, I think you just won the thread with that B5 reference. Yes I'm a fanboy who owns every episodic soundtrack CD, stop looking at me like that.

I'm only looking at you like that because I'm thinking about raiding your CD collection...