I've never been a big fan of early voting. Thinking of the Sinema mess scenario.
I mean, I would hate to pull an early ballot for someone, then a mere week or so after it comes out that they have no issue with US citizens fighting for the Taliban, their approval of a flyer depicting US military as mass murderers, and feels it prudent to engage witches and pagans in weird as **** political rituals.
I mean buyer's remorse is one thing -- bound to happen from time to time. But buyer's remorse if you pulled the lever on the first day of early voting and found out on the fourth day that the dude/gal was implicated in a pedophile ring (where you *could* have voted another way given the time frame) I just would hate.
And it does happen. Look at what happened to Sinema in a short 7 day timeframe.....
I think I will wait until the last day of 'early' to do that. Heck, they might even unearth a bill that O'Rourke sponsored, engaged in amazing bipartisan effort to get passed, and actually passed that affects 90 percent of the nation in a positive manner that would change my vote on that.....
(Or he might airdrum something from AC/DC that might just have the same effect....)
(10-22-2018 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I've never been a big fan of early voting. Thinking of the Sinema mess scenario.
I mean, I would hate to pull an early ballot for someone, then a mere week or so after it comes out that they have no issue with US citizens fighting for the Taliban, their approval of a flyer depicting US military as mass murderers, and feels it prudent to engage witches and pagans in weird as **** political rituals.
I mean buyer's remorse is one thing -- bound to happen from time to time. But buyer's remorse if you pulled the lever on the first day of early voting and found out on the fourth day that the dude/gal was implicated in a pedophile ring (where you *could* have voted another way given the time frame) I just would hate.
And it does happen. Look at what happened to Sinema in a short 7 day timeframe.....
I think I will wait until the last day of 'early' to do that. Heck, they might even unearth a bill that O'Rourke sponsored, engaged in amazing bipartisan effort to get passed, and actually passed that affects 90 percent of the nation in a positive manner that would change my vote on that..... (Or he might airdrum something from AC/DC that might just have the same effect....)
Just the opposite here. I will be out of town on Election Day. I appreciate the opportunity to vote early.
BUT, I also think, how crowded would it be if all the early voters and others had to squeeze into that courthouse in 12 hours.
AND, I have to consider the possibility of me kicking the bucket before Election Day. Not a big likelihood, but as likely I think as the odds of some previously unknown pedophilia being found in a candidate in the last couple of weeks. Of course, that would make the choice between a pedophile and damn fool. Not very attractive.
I think both sides see a heavy turnout as a good sign.
(10-22-2018 01:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think both sides see a heavy turnout as a good sign.
Frankly, we should all see heavy turnout as a good sign.
The less people sitting on the sidelines, the better.
(10-22-2018 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think both sides see a heavy turnout as a good sign.
Frankly, we should all see heavy turnout as a good sign.
The less people sitting on the sidelines, the better.
I could point to a whole load of videos that would lead me to the opposite conclusion.
Call me an absolute reactionary, but after seeing the 'quality' of the belief systems of 'motivated' political people, I am coming to the conclusion that there probably is quite a bit of justification for a revival of a 'literacy test+'.
Look, I have no problem with my vote being cancelled by a rational, well thought out position that happens to 'swing the other way'.
It does really kind of piss me off with my vote being cancelled out by some Trigglypuff douche bomb. And I would assume that you might be irked by your vote being canceled by some dumb as doormat person who is enamored by and thinks that Alex Jones is 'da bomb'.
For those who are not 'in the know' on the Trigglypuff reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=dA3VhoKCIkM
And yes, I am very aware of the sheer impossibility of the thought of it being implemented, let alone the ways it could (would) be corrupted. But a simple minded dork can wish, right?
(10-22-2018 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think both sides see a heavy turnout as a good sign.
Frankly, we should all see heavy turnout as a good sign.
The less people sitting on the sidelines, the better.
I could point to a whole load of videos that would lead me to the opposite conclusion.
Call me an absolute reactionary, but after seeing the 'quality' of the belief systems of 'motivated' political people, I am coming to the conclusion that there probably is quite a bit of justification for a revival of a 'literacy test+'.
Look, I have no problem with my vote being cancelled by a rational, well thought out position that happens to 'swing the other way'.
It does really kind of piss me off with my vote being cancelled out by some Trigglypuff douche bomb. And I would assume that you might be irked by your vote being canceled by some dumb as doormat person who is enamored by and thinks that Alex Jones is 'da bomb'.
For those who are not 'in the know' on the Trigglypuff reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=dA3VhoKCIkM
You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age. Our country has a history of using tests to disenfranchise entire populations, so I have no urge to step backwards in that arena.
I do not think the ends justify the means.
But a deep dark evil part of you understands and smiles when I say that..... 03-wink
Lad, did you ever read (not see the movie) Starship Troopers? I read it the first time when I was 17 and was horrified. Next time I read it I was in my early 20's and in my somewhat 'radical' stage --- was even more horrified by it. I reread it two years ago (for about the 5th time), and scarily I was thinking to myself "GD, thats not such a bad idea...."
(10-22-2018 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think both sides see a heavy turnout as a good sign.
Frankly, we should all see heavy turnout as a good sign.
The less people sitting on the sidelines, the better.
I could point to a whole load of videos that would lead me to the opposite conclusion.
Call me an absolute reactionary, but after seeing the 'quality' of the belief systems of 'motivated' political people, I am coming to the conclusion that there probably is quite a bit of justification for a revival of a 'literacy test+'.
Look, I have no problem with my vote being cancelled by a rational, well thought out position that happens to 'swing the other way'.
It does really kind of piss me off with my vote being cancelled out by some Trigglypuff douche bomb. And I would assume that you might be irked by your vote being canceled by some dumb as doormat person who is enamored by and thinks that Alex Jones is 'da bomb'.
For those who are not 'in the know' on the Trigglypuff reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=dA3VhoKCIkM
You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age. Our country has a history of using tests to disenfranchise entire populations, so I have no urge to step backwards in that arena.
I do not think the ends justify the means.
But a deep dark evil part of you understands and smiles when I say that.....
Lad, did you ever read (not see the movie) Starship Troopers? I read it the first time when I was 17 and was horrified. Next time I read it I was in my early 20's and in my somewhat 'radical' stage --- was even more horrified by it. I reread it two years ago (for about the 5th time), and scarily I was thinking to myself "GD, thats not such a bad idea...."
I started it at some point in my high school years but never finished it.
A look at the biology of our partisan divide..
Quote:There are genuine psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Understanding these differences can give us fresh insight into our political conflicts.
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript...=654127241
And a link to the criminal complaint against Elena Khusyaynova, 44, who was recently charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, outlining in detail how foreign operatives work to exacerbate that divide.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documen...ions/3247/
(10-22-2018 01:55 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]A look at the biology of our partisan divide..
Quote:There are genuine psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Understanding these differences can give us fresh insight into our political conflicts.
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript...=654127241
And a link to the criminal complaint against Elena Khusyaynova, 44, who was recently charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, outlining in detail how foreign operatives work to exacerbate that divide.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documen...ions/3247/
Ease -- perhaps you should actually read the sole statute she is charged with. Please do tell how any of the action is a 'fraud' on the United States?
How do you distinguish Elena and her 40 actions from 'illegal immigrant' Juancho Ramirez who posts *anything* political on Facebook?
Look I see that there are foreigners with an an aim to destabilize the votes and politics of the US. Trouble is, how do you make their 'political speech' (which it is) illegal and distinguish it from Juanchos, or mine, or OO's, or yours for that matter.
Seems fairly problematic to me in retrospect, and after having read the defense motions of Concord.
(10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.
Hoping you didnt mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.
(10-22-2018 02:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:55 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]A look at the biology of our partisan divide..
Quote:There are genuine psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Understanding these differences can give us fresh insight into our political conflicts.
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript...=654127241
And a link to the criminal complaint against Elena Khusyaynova, 44, who was recently charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, outlining in detail how foreign operatives work to exacerbate that divide.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documen...ions/3247/
Ease -- perhaps you should actually read the sole statute she is charged with. Please do tell how any of the action is a 'fraud' on the United States?
How do you distinguish Elena and her 40 actions from 'illegal immigrant' Juancho Ramirez who posts *anything* political on Facebook?
Look I see that there are foreigners with an an aim to destabilize the votes and politics of the US. Trouble is, how do you make their 'political speech' (which it is) illegal and distinguish it from Juanchos, or mine, or OO's, or yours for that matter.
Seems fairly problematic to me in retrospect, and after having read the defense motions of Concord.
What a trumped-up charge, and one that just pisses on the Bill of Rights.
That's what happens when law enforcement is put under intense political pressure to indict someone, anyone.
(10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.
Hoping you didnt mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.
I figured that was implied.
(10-22-2018 03:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.
Hoping you didnt mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.
I figured that was implied.
According to California and local elections there it seems that California has deemed it as not implied.
(10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.
Hoping you didn't mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.
What's magic about age? Why is 18 better than 21 or 55 or 12? There are lots of 10 year olds who have a better grasp of issues than a lot of 25 year olds.
Of course, the minimum age is a feeble attempt to restrict voting to those who understand the matters to be voted on - economics, foreign affairs, etc. But when it comes to restricting the franchise to those who actually do understand, there is this loud wailing, mostly from the left.
I don't think it goes far enough, but I see no reason why natural born citizens should not take the one time test to be able to vote that naturalized citizens take. Show not only a little knowledge, but also a little desire. What's it take, 30 minutes and a rudimentary knowledge of our government not automatically conveyed by birth?
And as I said before, citizenship is not a barrier to voting in certain California communities and other places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_f...ted_States
(10-22-2018 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think both sides see a heavy turnout as a good sign.
Frankly, we should all see heavy turnout as a good sign.
The less people sitting on the sidelines, the better.
There are political scientists who would disagree, as follows: to some extent, a high turnout may reflecs people's widespread belief that their fundamental happiness depends profoundly on the outcome of the election -- which is not a good thing at all. In a stable polity, the fundamental conditions of life are NOT so subject to the slings and arrow of electoral results. Having those conditions depend on a particular election outcome is a bug, not a feature. At any rate, that's one theory.
(10-22-2018 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.
Hoping you didn't mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.
What's magic about age? Why is 18 better than 21 or 55 or 12? There are lots of 10 year olds who have a better grasp of issues than a lot of 25 year olds.
Of course, the minimum age is a feeble attempt to restrict voting to those who understand the matters to be voted on - economics, foreign affairs, etc. But when it comes to restricting the franchise to those who actually do understand, there is this loud wailing, mostly from the left.
I don't think it goes far enough, but I see no reason why natural born citizens should not take the one time test to be able to vote that naturalized citizens take. Show not only a little knowledge, but also a little desire. What's it take, 30 minutes and a rudimentary knowledge of our government not automatically conveyed by birth?
And as I said before, citizenship is not a barrier to voting in certain California communities and other places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_f...ted_States
What’s magic about age is it can’t be discriminated against. You’re either 18 and older, or not. And 18 is only magical because we, as a society, have said it is. It’s the age you’re legally an adult and can die for the country - along with drinking beer, I think you should also be able to vote if that’s the case.
That loud wailing from the left is because history has shown us that parties in power will often use whatever means necessary to disenfranchise certain peoples if possible. I know you’re older than me, so my guess is you still remember a time when such efforts (like poll taxes) were legal. I’m not sure how anyone could want to go back to a time when having a direct say in who governs is not afforded to all voting-age citizens.
I do think it would be great if every voter was informed on civics, I just don’t believe that it will result in anything else but voter disenfranchisement.
(10-23-2018 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.
Hoping you didn't mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.
What's magic about age? Why is 18 better than 21 or 55 or 12? There are lots of 10 year olds who have a better grasp of issues than a lot of 25 year olds.
Of course, the minimum age is a feeble attempt to restrict voting to those who understand the matters to be voted on - economics, foreign affairs, etc. But when it comes to restricting the franchise to those who actually do understand, there is this loud wailing, mostly from the left.
I don't think it goes far enough, but I see no reason why natural born citizens should not take the one time test to be able to vote that naturalized citizens take. Show not only a little knowledge, but also a little desire. What's it take, 30 minutes and a rudimentary knowledge of our government not automatically conveyed by birth?
And as I said before, citizenship is not a barrier to voting in certain California communities and other places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_f...ted_States
What’s magic about age is it can’t be discriminated against. You’re either 18 and older, or not. And 18 is only magical because we, as a society, have said it is. It’s the age you’re legally an adult and can die for the country - along with drinking beer, I think you should also be able to vote if that’s the case.
That loud wailing from the left is because history has shown us that parties in power will often use whatever means necessary to disenfranchise certain peoples if possible. I know you’re older than me, so my guess is you still remember a time when such efforts (like poll taxes) were legal. I’m not sure how anyone could want to go back to a time when having a direct say in who governs is not afforded to all voting-age citizens.
I do think it would be great if every voter was informed on civics, I just don’t believe that it will result in anything else but voter disenfranchisement.
Then again, if
every policy idea were judged by the perniciousness of its effects when applied by people in power, rather than by the theoretical nobility of its intentions, there wouldn't be a left to speak of. :)
(10-23-2018 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.
Hoping you didn't mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.
What's magic about age? Why is 18 better than 21 or 55 or 12? There are lots of 10 year olds who have a better grasp of issues than a lot of 25 year olds.
Of course, the minimum age is a feeble attempt to restrict voting to those who understand the matters to be voted on - economics, foreign affairs, etc. But when it comes to restricting the franchise to those who actually do understand, there is this loud wailing, mostly from the left.
I don't think it goes far enough, but I see no reason why natural born citizens should not take the one time test to be able to vote that naturalized citizens take. Show not only a little knowledge, but also a little desire. What's it take, 30 minutes and a rudimentary knowledge of our government not automatically conveyed by birth?
And as I said before, citizenship is not a barrier to voting in certain California communities and other places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_f...ted_States
What’s magic about age is it can’t be discriminated against. You’re either 18 and older, or not. And 18 is only magical because we, as a society, have said it is. It’s the age you’re legally an adult and can die for the country - along with drinking beer, I think you should also be able to vote if that’s the case.
That loud wailing from the left is because history has shown us that parties in power will often use whatever means necessary to disenfranchise certain peoples if possible. I know you’re older than me, so my guess is you still remember a time when such efforts (like poll taxes) were legal. I’m not sure how anyone could want to go back to a time when having a direct say in who governs is not afforded to all voting-age citizens.
I do think it would be great if every voter was informed on civics, I just don’t believe that it will result in anything else but voter disenfranchisement.
Watching the chicks in the pink vejayjay hats and tutus, the antifas, and the dudes carrying modernistic swastikas sure makes the idea, at least to me, at the very least worthy of discussion, perhaps even look pretty damn good.
Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.
(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-23-2018 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.
Hoping you didn't mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.
What's magic about age? Why is 18 better than 21 or 55 or 12? There are lots of 10 year olds who have a better grasp of issues than a lot of 25 year olds.
Of course, the minimum age is a feeble attempt to restrict voting to those who understand the matters to be voted on - economics, foreign affairs, etc. But when it comes to restricting the franchise to those who actually do understand, there is this loud wailing, mostly from the left.
I don't think it goes far enough, but I see no reason why natural born citizens should not take the one time test to be able to vote that naturalized citizens take. Show not only a little knowledge, but also a little desire. What's it take, 30 minutes and a rudimentary knowledge of our government not automatically conveyed by birth?
And as I said before, citizenship is not a barrier to voting in certain California communities and other places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_f...ted_States
What’s magic about age is it can’t be discriminated against. You’re either 18 and older, or not. And 18 is only magical because we, as a society, have said it is. It’s the age you’re legally an adult and can die for the country - along with drinking beer, I think you should also be able to vote if that’s the case.
That loud wailing from the left is because history has shown us that parties in power will often use whatever means necessary to disenfranchise certain peoples if possible. I know you’re older than me, so my guess is you still remember a time when such efforts (like poll taxes) were legal. I’m not sure how anyone could want to go back to a time when having a direct say in who governs is not afforded to all voting-age citizens.
I do think it would be great if every voter was informed on civics, I just don’t believe that it will result in anything else but voter disenfranchisement.
Watching the chicks in the pink vejayjay hats and tutus, the antifas, and the dudes carrying modernistic swastikas sure makes the idea, at least to me, at the very least worthy of discussion, perhaps even look pretty damn good.
Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.
I, too, would enjoy the spectacle of Trump being unable to vote for himself.
As to OO's point, I'd also enjoy the spectacle of Trump being subjected to an (unannounced) citizenship test.