(07-14-2021 03:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 12:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Key word is detrimental.

No, the key word is 'equal'. Just like the word is 'racist', and 'discrimination', you now seek to add all these other 'key words' (albeit they reside as key only in your own mind).

Again, the 'key word' is *not* 'detrimental'. The 'key word' (and 'key concept', mind you) is 'equal'. I find it astounding in one sense that that escapes you for your retreat point of 'detrimental.'

Quote:If there is an established minimum access that is required, and that is meant, I don’t see why going above and beyond is an issue. Establishing a floor to equal access makes sense to me. Establishing a ceiling to equal access makes less sense to me.

Again, a progressive that isnt really in tune with the idea of 'equal' as used in 'equal access'. Lolz.

Quote:If someone can articulate a compelling arguments as to why a county should not be able to expand access,

Uhh...... equal access. Funny how some of you go ape **** for some types of equal access, then go ape **** in the reverse anti- sense for other types of equal access.

Have to say, that blindness of the term 'equal' really makes me laugh.

I can't control what "some of [us]" go "ape ****" over. I can just control my opinion.

Sorry that I did not confer with other progressives and get their buy off on my personal opinion, you seem rather annoyed that there isn't a unified group think you can attack.

Like I said, it makes sense to establish a floor to equal access that all must abide by. But should a jurisdiction want to enhance access for all their constituents, I don't see a compelling reason to keep said jurisdiction from doing that, so long as the agreed upon floor was met.

It's similar to environmental protections, IMO. You set a floor one must achieve at a larger area, and if a more local jurisdiction wants to exceed the floor, they can do that.

Cool, the reasoning behind separate but equal. Lolz.

The problem is that, seemingly, you have zero idea of what a protected or a fundamental right is. Nor apparently of the concept of equal access. In fact, I am sure you dont have a clue on the concept of equal access, since you are the unabashed board champion of explicitly racially discriminatory policies elsewhere.

And I might not. But this is my opinion on the matter - you trying to chastise or belittle me won't change my opinion. But offering a compelling argument as to why the expansion of access results in an problematic situation would be a good way to start.

Quote:

Quote:Some places can give it the 'floor' (Crane County). Some places can give it all the bells and whistles, since it is more. All is good in that setup apparently. What other fundamental rights do you want to have others being given unequal access to based on residency?

Sounds like fun there, lad.

Well, we know that gun laws vary based on where someone lives, with some places being more strict than others.

Or is that not a fundamental right in this discussion?

(07-14-2021 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As I said earlier, I came of voting age at a time when if you could not show up at the polls between 7 and 7 on the designated Election Day, you were SOL. Like I said, I drove five hours from Houston to cast my first vote.


Now, I can spend two weeks or more choosing my time. I like that. But why not make it 4 weeks? Why not make it 10? Why not make it anytime? If one is going to cast a straight party ticket, what is the need to wait? Go ahead and vote for a nominee to be named later.

I am Ok with allowing local option, letting the rich counties out-access the poor ones. I am also ok with not doing it, allowing nobody to have special access.

Perhaps if the Democrats had not made this all (our way) or nothing (the highway), they could have negotiated some changes. Maybe they really didn’t want to, preferring to have a campaign issue.


My questions are not if we should do this or do that, but why the Democrats in both Texas and DC label this as voter suppression and Jim Crow 2.0. I ask not if these choices are good or bad, but why the Dems call them suppression.

Wait, so you actually agree with letting counties do 24 hr voting if they can support it? Then why such push back towards me?

I don’t care either way. Like you, I am fine with rich people counties getting advantages over poor, if they can pay for them. No need for schools or public defenders to be equal. Let Dallas County have gold restroom fixtures if they want, as long as the people in Deaf Smith Count have outhouses.

I just want to know why the Democratic Party characterizes these reforms as racially suppressive. I have asked many times, and I think I am being dodged.

Let me be blunt here: it is an outright, big fat LIE. Can I get you to agree on that?

My asking this is what you call push back.

I simply want to know why some here champion for unequal access to a fundamental right? Considering at least one is the biggest proponent of cartoons for their explanation of the advantages of equity over equal access, I dont think I am much surprised.

The outright lie in the 'Jim Crow 2.0' is simply the cherry on top.

I mean, in a perfect world we would expand a 24 hr voting opportunity to everyone.

But if one county wants to provide a more equitable outcome to its voters, can you provide a reason why it should be excluded from doing so?

(07-14-2021 05:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 04:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 04:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Heck yeah - if a county wants to provide more services to its citizens, why should it be stopped????

They can make the cost benefit analysis. Who knows, maybe they passed a sales tax increase to fun a 24/7 records department.

And yeah, if one county wants to blow all its dough leaving voting sites open 24/7, while still being able to fund and maintain their other services, go for it. The voters in said county can have their voices heard next election and hold officials accountable if it is not the will of their people.

Interesting you use the phrases “tax increase” and “blow all its dough”.

Here I thought we choose officials to be responsible stewards of public monies on behalf of all the citizens.

Guess I was wrong. We choose them to run amok. Good plan, Lad.

We elect people based on what they campaign on. If people in Smithville, Arkansas elect officials to increase taxes and blow all their dough, that's their perogative.

I don't really get the point of this back and forth.

I'm advocating that state's allow counties leeway to operate voting sites 24/7 if they want to and to allow them to spend their funds as they generally see fit (so long as they meet a floor).

What's your position? Right now it just seems to be challenge all and twist words past the point of rationality. I mean, look at this last post.

My position is that I think you are grasping at straws to avoid saying that the hoopla about this being a racist measure designed to suppress minority voting is a lie. You keep want to talk about anything else.

You’re trying to manufacture hoopla on this board. At least your first question, which started all this, appeared to be in earnest about my opinion on the proposed changes.

(07-14-2021 04:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wait, so you actually agree with letting counties do 24 hr voting if they can support it? Then why such push back towards me?

We have a lot things that are unequal between counties. Generally it is your side that declares inequality is bad. Usually claiming that any inequality is racist. Thus it seems odd that y’all are in favor of this inequality. But nobody ever claimed that Democrats were either logical or consistent.

I guess what I am saying is this:

I DON’T CARE if some counties are unequal, the situation you desire. I suspect your desire for inequality is just pushback against the law because it is proposed by the Republicans. The people wanting pushback claim the law is racially suppressive. Jim Crow 2.0. Do these wild unsupported claims have any traction with you opposing the law, and if so, why? Do you just blindly accept what Jim Clyburn says?

How the heck is anything in these proposed laws suppressive of any minority group? (Estimated twentieth time asking)

I mean... since neither Lad or I are carrying the flag for these laws being racist I'm not sure why you're asking us for answers. Like I said... I haven't really dug into this debate.

I could look up some articles on it and get better educated on that specific argument, but then so could you. It seems that the Sunday voting restrictions were thought to be specifically targeting the black church get-out-to-vote drives?

Yeah, you need to look up some articles.

Simply not high on my reading list right now with limited time.

Quote:That was changed. The Sunday start time was changed to accommodate those black church get out the vote drives. I am sure that other changes could be negotiated if the Democrats did not insist on all or nothing.

I have read numerous articles that claim the laws are racist, without a single word of explanation as to how and why. That is why I come to the Democratic Defenders here, you and Lad, asking.

I'm not a democratic defender. I'll defend those positions that I personally hold, though.

Sorry I don't have an educated opinion on every issue. There's no time for that right now.

Quote:Lad wants to argue that rich counties ought to be able to fund more voting time if they want to. I don’t care.

My question from day 1 has been what in these laws makes them suppressive of any voting group, specifically those defined by race.

Sorry you and Lad have to carry the Democrat flag, but they are the gang you support, so if you disagree that these laws are racist, just say so. But people you vote for and support are saying this, and IMO it is just a lie.

I don't really know if they are racist or not. That would take some time to educate myself on the issue.

The party that you vote for has politicized vaccines. I doubt you support that.

(07-14-2021 09:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 04:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have a lot things that are unequal between counties. Generally it is your side that declares inequality is bad. Usually claiming that any inequality is racist. Thus it seems odd that y’all are in favor of this inequality. But nobody ever claimed that Democrats were either logical or consistent.

I guess what I am saying is this:

I DON’T CARE if some counties are unequal, the situation you desire. I suspect your desire for inequality is just pushback against the law because it is proposed by the Republicans. The people wanting pushback claim the law is racially suppressive. Jim Crow 2.0. Do these wild unsupported claims have any traction with you opposing the law, and if so, why? Do you just blindly accept what Jim Clyburn says?

How the heck is anything in these proposed laws suppressive of any minority group? (Estimated twentieth time asking)

I mean... since neither Lad or I are carrying the flag for these laws being racist I'm not sure why you're asking us for answers. Like I said... I haven't really dug into this debate.

I could look up some articles on it and get better educated on that specific argument, but then so could you. It seems that the Sunday voting restrictions were thought to be specifically targeting the black church get-out-to-vote drives?

Yeah, you need to look up some articles.

Simply not high on my reading list right now with limited time.

Quote:That was changed. The Sunday start time was changed to accommodate those black church get out the vote drives. I am sure that other changes could be negotiated if the Democrats did not insist on all or nothing.

I have read numerous articles that claim the laws are racist, without a single word of explanation as to how and why. That is why I come to the Democratic Defenders here, you and Lad, asking.

I'm not a democratic defender. I'll defend those positions that I personally hold, though.

Sorry I don't have an educated opinion on every issue. There's no time for that right now.

Quote:Lad wants to argue that rich counties ought to be able to fund more voting time if they want to. I don’t care.

My question from day 1 has been what in these laws makes them suppressive of any voting group, specifically those defined by race.

Sorry you and Lad have to carry the Democrat flag, but they are the gang you support, so if you disagree that these laws are racist, just say so. But people you vote for and support are saying this, and IMO it is just a lie.

I don't really know if they are racist or not. That would take some time to educate myself on the issue.

The party that you vote for has politicized vaccines. I doubt you support that.

I guess I will have to say I have not followed the vaccine debates, and I am too busy to bother to read up on it. I don’t know which party supports what. My personal opinion is that everybody should get vaccinated.

I tend to vote Republican, as the alternative is Democrats. But I try to take issues one at a time. Like you, I would be against any racial voter suppression. But I don’t see any - just a bunch of Democrats crying wolf.

Quote:However, it does not take a great deal of research or even consciousness to know the Democrats are fighting voter laws tooth and nail, to the point of fleeing the state. Hard to imagine anybody not knowing those basics. One could reasonably wonder what they think are wrong with the laws. I don’t think I was ever so unknowledgeable when I was running three businesses and out of the country half the time, plus raising three kids a s a single parent. Yes, I had my busy times.

But in any case, let me say I hope your busyness is the result of increased demand and not increased brushfires.

(07-14-2021 04:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not a democratic defender. I'll defend those positions that I personally hold, though.
Sorry I don't have an educated opinion on every issue. There's no time for that right now.

(07-14-2021 09:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 04:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not a democratic defender. I'll defend those positions that I personally hold, though.
Sorry I don't have an educated opinion on every issue. There's no time for that right now.

I'm not a republican defender. I'll defend those positions that I personally hold.

Some of those positions are republican positions. Some, as nearly as I can tell, are not. None of them, again as nearly as I can tell, are democrat positions.

(07-14-2021 09:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 04:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have a lot things that are unequal between counties. Generally it is your side that declares inequality is bad. Usually claiming that any inequality is racist. Thus it seems odd that y’all are in favor of this inequality. But nobody ever claimed that Democrats were either logical or consistent.

I guess what I am saying is this:

I DON’T CARE if some counties are unequal, the situation you desire. I suspect your desire for inequality is just pushback against the law because it is proposed by the Republicans. The people wanting pushback claim the law is racially suppressive. Jim Crow 2.0. Do these wild unsupported claims have any traction with you opposing the law, and if so, why? Do you just blindly accept what Jim Clyburn says?

How the heck is anything in these proposed laws suppressive of any minority group? (Estimated twentieth time asking)

I mean... since neither Lad or I are carrying the flag for these laws being racist I'm not sure why you're asking us for answers. Like I said... I haven't really dug into this debate.

I could look up some articles on it and get better educated on that specific argument, but then so could you. It seems that the Sunday voting restrictions were thought to be specifically targeting the black church get-out-to-vote drives?

Yeah, you need to look up some articles.

Simply not high on my reading list right now with limited time.

Quote:That was changed. The Sunday start time was changed to accommodate those black church get out the vote drives. I am sure that other changes could be negotiated if the Democrats did not insist on all or nothing.

I have read numerous articles that claim the laws are racist, without a single word of explanation as to how and why. That is why I come to the Democratic Defenders here, you and Lad, asking.

I'm not a democratic defender. I'll defend those positions that I personally hold, though.

Sorry I don't have an educated opinion on every issue. There's no time for that right now.

Quote:Lad wants to argue that rich counties ought to be able to fund more voting time if they want to. I don’t care.

My question from day 1 has been what in these laws makes them suppressive of any voting group, specifically those defined by race.

Sorry you and Lad have to carry the Democrat flag, but they are the gang you support, so if you disagree that these laws are racist, just say so. But people you vote for and support are saying this, and IMO it is just a lie.

I don't really know if they are racist or not. That would take some time to educate myself on the issue.

The party that you vote for has politicized vaccines. I doubt you support that.

I guess I will have to say I have not followed the vaccine debates, and I am too busy to bother to read up on it. I don’t know which party supports what. My personal opinion is that everybody should get vaccinated.

I tend to vote Republican, as the alternative is Democrats. But I try to take issues one at a time. Like you, I would be against any racial voter suppression. But I don’t see any - just a bunch of Democrats crying wolf.

However, it does not take a great deal of research or even consciousness to know the Democrats are fighting voter laws tooth and nail, to the point of fleeing the state. Hard to imagine anybody not knowing those basics. One could reasonably wonder what they think are wrong with the laws. I don’t think I was ever so unknowledgeable when I was running three businesses and out of the country half the time, plus raising three kids a s a single parent. Yes, I had my busy times.

(07-14-2021 09:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 04:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I mean... since neither Lad or I are carrying the flag for these laws being racist I'm not sure why you're asking us for answers. Like I said... I haven't really dug into this debate.

I could look up some articles on it and get better educated on that specific argument, but then so could you. It seems that the Sunday voting restrictions were thought to be specifically targeting the black church get-out-to-vote drives?

Yeah, you need to look up some articles.

Simply not high on my reading list right now with limited time.

Quote:That was changed. The Sunday start time was changed to accommodate those black church get out the vote drives. I am sure that other changes could be negotiated if the Democrats did not insist on all or nothing.

I have read numerous articles that claim the laws are racist, without a single word of explanation as to how and why. That is why I come to the Democratic Defenders here, you and Lad, asking.

I'm not a democratic defender. I'll defend those positions that I personally hold, though.

Sorry I don't have an educated opinion on every issue. There's no time for that right now.

Quote:Lad wants to argue that rich counties ought to be able to fund more voting time if they want to. I don’t care.

My question from day 1 has been what in these laws makes them suppressive of any voting group, specifically those defined by race.

Sorry you and Lad have to carry the Democrat flag, but they are the gang you support, so if you disagree that these laws are racist, just say so. But people you vote for and support are saying this, and IMO it is just a lie.

I don't really know if they are racist or not. That would take some time to educate myself on the issue.

The party that you vote for has politicized vaccines. I doubt you support that.

I guess I will have to say I have not followed the vaccine debates, and I am too busy to bother to read up on it. I don’t know which party supports what. My personal opinion is that everybody should get vaccinated.

I tend to vote Republican, as the alternative is Democrats. But I try to take issues one at a time. Like you, I would be against any racial voter suppression. But I don’t see any - just a bunch of Democrats crying wolf.

However, it does not take a great deal of research or even consciousness to know the Democrats are fighting voter laws tooth and nail, to the point of fleeing the state. Hard to imagine anybody not knowing those basics. One could reasonably wonder what they think are wrong with the laws. I don’t think I was ever so unknowledgeable when I was running three businesses and out of the country half the time, plus raising three kids a s a single parent. Yes, I had my busy times.

Thank you for that. Yes... I am aware of the basics that you laid out. What I have said (repeatedly) is that I haven't dived into the specific arguments made by those who feel that these laws specifically affect black voters. It's not intuitive to me. Apparently it's not intuitive for you either. I'm sure that you can find plenty of articles on the topic were you inclined to pursue it outside of the Quad.

(07-14-2021 09:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are very few 100% "Democrat positions" and 100% "Republican positions".
With that said, my guess is that you would have voted against the Texas bathroom bill. That was a "Democrat position". Allowing gay couples to adopt? Also a "Democrat position". Legalizing marijuana? A "Democrat position".
Are you in favor of any of these?

(07-14-2021 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 04:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, you need to look up some articles.

Simply not high on my reading list right now with limited time.

Quote:That was changed. The Sunday start time was changed to accommodate those black church get out the vote drives. I am sure that other changes could be negotiated if the Democrats did not insist on all or nothing.

I have read numerous articles that claim the laws are racist, without a single word of explanation as to how and why. That is why I come to the Democratic Defenders here, you and Lad, asking.

I'm not a democratic defender. I'll defend those positions that I personally hold, though.

Sorry I don't have an educated opinion on every issue. There's no time for that right now.

Quote:Lad wants to argue that rich counties ought to be able to fund more voting time if they want to. I don’t care.

My question from day 1 has been what in these laws makes them suppressive of any voting group, specifically those defined by race.

Sorry you and Lad have to carry the Democrat flag, but they are the gang you support, so if you disagree that these laws are racist, just say so. But people you vote for and support are saying this, and IMO it is just a lie.

I don't really know if they are racist or not. That would take some time to educate myself on the issue.

The party that you vote for has politicized vaccines. I doubt you support that.

I guess I will have to say I have not followed the vaccine debates, and I am too busy to bother to read up on it. I don’t know which party supports what. My personal opinion is that everybody should get vaccinated.

I tend to vote Republican, as the alternative is Democrats. But I try to take issues one at a time. Like you, I would be against any racial voter suppression. But I don’t see any - just a bunch of Democrats crying wolf.

However, it does not take a great deal of research or even consciousness to know the Democrats are fighting voter laws tooth and nail, to the point of fleeing the state. Hard to imagine anybody not knowing those basics. One could reasonably wonder what they think are wrong with the laws. I don’t think I was ever so unknowledgeable when I was running three businesses and out of the country half the time, plus raising three kids a s a single parent. Yes, I had my busy times.

Thank you for that. Yes... I am aware of the basics that you laid out. What I have said (repeatedly) is that I haven't dived into the specific arguments made by those who feel that these laws specifically affect black voters. It's not intuitive to me. Apparently it's not intuitive for you either. I'm sure that you can find plenty of articles on the topic were you inclined to pursue it outside of the Quad.

That’s just it. I have read dozens. Not one has any specifics of WHY the legislation is deemed to be racist and suppressive. Not one offers any explanation of HOw or WHO. Literally, all we have is a bunch of Democrats and their MSM carping about how they are standing against the racist GOP plans. Might as well say they are fighting voodoo. Or zombies. I think they have successfully duped their rank and file, by accusations with no facts, even as they condemn Trump for alleging fraud “without proof”. What a trick.

It’s a lie, because they know it’s not true.

But enough. You and Lad cannot bring yourselves to deny the fake crisis.

(07-14-2021 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are very few 100% "Democrat positions" and 100% "Republican positions".
With that said, my guess is that you would have voted against the Texas bathroom bill. That was a "Democrat position". Allowing gay couples to adopt? Also a "Democrat position". Legalizing marijuana? A "Democrat position".
Are you in favor of any of these?

Not clear which bathroom bill you are referring to, but I think I would have voted in favor. I favor allowing gay couples to adopt and legalizing marijuana. I don't see either of those as partisan issues, and have recommended repeatedly that republicans should come around to my views on both. A friend was debating gay adoption and asked me for ideas, and I said, ask if your opponent would prefer the child be aborted.

I am a Christian but not a right-wing evangelical. I am not a fan of letting the religious right take over the republican party. I do believe that mainline denominations have moved too far left.

(07-14-2021 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are very few 100% "Democrat positions" and 100% "Republican positions".
With that said, my guess is that you would have voted against the Texas bathroom bill. That was a "Democrat position". Allowing gay couples to adopt? Also a "Democrat position". Legalizing marijuana? A "Democrat position".
Are you in favor of any of these?

Not clear which bathroom bill you are referring to, but I think I would have voted in favor. I favor allowing gay couples to adopt and legalizing marijuana. I don't see either of those as partisan issues, and have recommended repeatedly that republicans should come around to my views on both. A friend was debating gay adoption and asked me for ideas, and I said, ask if your opponent would prefer the child be aborted.

I am a Christian but not a right-wing evangelical. I am not a fan of letting the religious right take over the republican party. I do believe that mainline denominations have moved too far left.

(07-14-2021 10:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are very few 100% "Democrat positions" and 100% "Republican positions".
With that said, my guess is that you would have voted against the Texas bathroom bill. That was a "Democrat position". Allowing gay couples to adopt? Also a "Democrat position". Legalizing marijuana? A "Democrat position".
Are you in favor of any of these?

Not clear which bathroom bill you are referring to, but I think I would have voted in favor. I favor allowing gay couples to adopt and legalizing marijuana. I don't see either of those as partisan issues, and have recommended repeatedly that republicans should come around to my views on both. A friend was debating gay adoption and asked me for ideas, and I said, ask if your opponent would prefer the child be aborted.
I am a Christian but not a right-wing evangelical. I am not a fan of letting the religious right take over the republican party. I do believe that mainline denominations have moved too far left.

Ding ding ding! There's a Democratic position that you support! I imagine there are more.

(07-14-2021 10:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are very few 100% "Democrat positions" and 100% "Republican positions".
With that said, my guess is that you would have voted against the Texas bathroom bill. That was a "Democrat position". Allowing gay couples to adopt? Also a "Democrat position". Legalizing marijuana? A "Democrat position".
Are you in favor of any of these?

Not clear which bathroom bill you are referring to, but I think I would have voted in favor. I favor allowing gay couples to adopt and legalizing marijuana. I don't see either of those as partisan issues, and have recommended repeatedly that republicans should come around to my views on both. A friend was debating gay adoption and asked me for ideas, and I said, ask if your opponent would prefer the child be aborted.
I am a Christian but not a right-wing evangelical. I am not a fan of letting the religious right take over the republican party. I do believe that mainline denominations have moved too far left.

Ding ding ding! There's a Democratic position that you support! I imagine there are more.

No that's not a democrat position. If it's a democrat position, why was it not passed when democrats had the white house and both houses of congress in 2009-2010, or when democrats took over the white house to go with both houses of congress earlier this year?

It's a libertarian position and I am a libertarian.

(07-14-2021 10:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 09:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are very few 100% "Democrat positions" and 100% "Republican positions".
With that said, my guess is that you would have voted against the Texas bathroom bill. That was a "Democrat position". Allowing gay couples to adopt? Also a "Democrat position". Legalizing marijuana? A "Democrat position".
Are you in favor of any of these?

Not clear which bathroom bill you are referring to, but I think I would have voted in favor. I favor allowing gay couples to adopt and legalizing marijuana. I don't see either of those as partisan issues, and have recommended repeatedly that republicans should come around to my views on both. A friend was debating gay adoption and asked me for ideas, and I said, ask if your opponent would prefer the child be aborted.
I am a Christian but not a right-wing evangelical. I am not a fan of letting the religious right take over the republican party. I do believe that mainline denominations have moved too far left.

Ding ding ding! There's a Democratic position that you support! I imagine there are more.

No that's not a democrat position. If it's a democrat position, why was it not passed when democrats had the white house and both houses of congress in 2009-2010, or when democrats took over the white house to go with both houses of congress earlier this year?

It's a libertarian position and I am a libertarian.

I support legalizing it because it makes sense.

But Numbers asks a good question. (Bolded). Will we get an answer?

(07-14-2021 10:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not clear which bathroom bill you are referring to, but I think I would have voted in favor. I favor allowing gay couples to adopt and legalizing marijuana. I don't see either of those as partisan issues, and have recommended repeatedly that republicans should come around to my views on both. A friend was debating gay adoption and asked me for ideas, and I said, ask if your opponent would prefer the child be aborted.
I am a Christian but not a right-wing evangelical. I am not a fan of letting the religious right take over the republican party. I do believe that mainline denominations have moved too far left.

Ding ding ding! There's a Democratic position that you support! I imagine there are more.

No that's not a democrat position. If it's a democrat position, why was it not passed when democrats had the white house and both houses of congress in 2009-2010, or when democrats took over the white house to go with both houses of congress earlier this year?

It's a libertarian position and I am a libertarian.

I support legalizing it because it makes sense.

But Numbers asks a good question. (Bolded). Will we get an answer?

I imagine that that the powers-that-be felt that it wasn't a great time to push this issue (maybe galvanizing the opposition for the upcoming election?). There's tons of issues that don't make the cut even when one party holds the majority.

I bet if one went through Congress and tallied up the "for" and "against" you would find Democrats >>>> Republicans "for". That's why I would consider it a Democratic position.

(07-14-2021 10:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 10:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Ding ding ding! There's a Democratic position that you support! I imagine there are more.

No that's not a democrat position. If it's a democrat position, why was it not passed when democrats had the white house and both houses of congress in 2009-2010, or when democrats took over the white house to go with both houses of congress earlier this year?

It's a libertarian position and I am a libertarian.

I support legalizing it because it makes sense.

But Numbers asks a good question. (Bolded). Will we get an answer?

I imagine that that the powers-that-be felt that it wasn't a great time to push this issue (maybe galvanizing the opposition for the upcoming election?). There's tons of issues that don't make the cut even when one party holds the majority.

I bet if one went through Congress and tallied up the "for" and "against" you would find Democrats >>>> Republicans "for". That's why I would consider it a Democratic position.

If it gathers that much support from both parties, I would consider it a bipartisan position.

Quote:Democrats >>>> Republicans "for". That's why I would consider it a Democratic position.

(07-14-2021 08:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I was wondering why people would be AGAINST 24-hour voting if the county could pull it off.