"as https://stopthedrugwar.org/files/williamfbuckley.jpg
William F. Buckley
William F. Buckley, the dean of American conservatism and advocate of drug legalization, died Wednesday at his home in Connecticut. He was 82.
Buckley, the scion of a wealthy Connecticut family, came to public prominence with the 1951 publication of "God and Man at Yale," a searing critique of what he saw as agnostic and collectivist tendencies among the faculty and curriculum of his alma mater. In 1955, he founded the National Review, the magazine that became the leading voice of post-war American conservatism and helped lead to the conservative renaissance that resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
While Buckley spent much of his career fighting for main-line conservative causes like smaller government, he also used the National Review and his decades-long stint as the host of PBS' "Firing Line" to advance his views in favor of the legalization of drugs. Along with figures like Milton Friedman and George Schulz, Buckley was among the first conservatives to adopt an overtly pro-legalization position.
Writing in the National Review in 1996, Buckley made the case for legalization:
"A conservative should evaluate the practicality of a legal constriction, as for instance in those states whose statute books continue to outlaw sodomy, which interdiction is unenforceable, making the law nothing more than print-on-paper. I came to the conclusion that the so-called war against drugs was not working, that it would not work absent a change in the structure of the civil rights to which we are accustomed and to which we cling as a valuable part of our patrimony. And that therefore if that war against drugs is not working, we should look into what effects the war has, a canvass of the casualties consequent on its failure to work."
In that same article, Buckley expressed abhorrence at the degree to which drug war zealotry infected the criminal justice system:
"I have not spoken of the cost to our society of the astonishing legal weapons available now to policemen and prosecutors; of the penalty of forfeiture of one's home and property for violation of laws which, though designed to advance the war against drugs, could legally be used -- I am told by learned counsel -- as penalties for the neglect of one's pets. I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."
Buckley's erudition, extensive vocabulary, and famously darting tongue, as well as his life-long commitment to conservative principles made him an iconic figure of the late 20th Century. His principled embrace of drug legalization made it all the easier for other conservatives to follow in his footsteps. Hopefully more will follow."
They shouldn't be legalized, but decriminalized. Legalization would bring a whole schlew of issues, but decriminilization would make it easier to get access to help. The current system just encourages users to continue to make bad decisions.
"Cooking isn't about struggling; It's about pleasure. It's like sǝx, with a wider variety of sauces."
At any given time the urge to sing "In The Jungle" is just a whim away... A whim away... A whim away...
Good point, @Wylaff. An unemployed, desperate addict would probably be no less likely to engage in criminal activity to buy drugs if the drugs were legalized--they would still cost whatever the market would bear.
@CalvinAndHobo said:
But that's currently happening. Lives are already being ruined. We're just wasting money and resources without fixing anything. Should we also set billions of dollars on fire when people ruin their lives in other ways, as a form of virtue signaling? Because that's what we're currently doing.
These drugs inspire their users to do absolutely revolting things in order to get another taste, it truly brings society down.
Again, just regarding this point, this is already happening, and we're not fixing anything. It's like fighting the weather. I'm not of the opinion that drugs are good obviously, I'm just defeated. I give up. I feel that there are 2 choices, and that anyone who invents a third choice is not being realistic:
1) Have drug users doing revolting things, while bringing society down.
2) Have drug users doing revolting things, while bringing society down, and setting billions of dollars on fire.
Your point about drug producers eventually having a lobbying role is a good one, and something I haven't considered. I'd have to think about that before spouting off, I try to avoid doing that when possible.
It's also worth pointing out that none of my political beliefs are actually going to be implemented, so none of this actually matters. Congress is too corrupt. I wonder why I spend time thinking about things like this, and not thinking of unicorns or elves or other hypothetical things that wouldn't depress me like politics does?
@ShawnOL said:
Nothing bad goes on in this country without the help or aid of the federal government. They seem to always be involved.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I found this article interesting in that it articulated some of what I was feeling/thinking about Biden's recent speeches. I don't blame Biden, as much as the speechwriters; but at the same time, it's like, doesn't he read this stuff before he reads the teleprompters?
The speeches are certainly duds, rife with divisiveness and even containing some outright lies (such as him being arrested when fighting for racial equality). I agree that the speechwriters were unwise and that Biden should take greater care of what he is reading on the teleprompter. However, I also like to know where people stand, I don't like being fed a bunch of fluff. In my opinion Biden just made it more clear where he truly stands.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
I think the BIG lie is tying "Voting Rights" to abolishing the filibuster. The filibuster exists primarily to protect the minority opinion. Am I wrong? Wasn't it just a few years ago that the Republicans were trying to get rid of the filibuster? Because they only had a slim majority, just like the Democrats have now?
Sure seems like it. But, I'm old. Perhaps my memory is wrong.
Sure seems like either side is willing to abandon the Constitution whenever they think they have an opportunity to make a power grab and steamroll actual rights of the people. That's the point of a Republic, the majority may be taken in by fluff, smoke & mirrors and horse-apples, the filibuster is there so that doesn't happen so easily.
Leave the Constitution alone. If the bill actually protects voters rights, it will pass. If it's just so much horse-hockey, that's when theatrical obfuscation is desired by those trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Just my opinion.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
If the bill actually protects voters rights, it will pass.
I agree with everything you said, just curious though, do you believe this? I don't, personally. I think it makes a congresspersons first job responsibility harder (getting reelected). I feel like if there was a different bill that actually protected voting rights in a fair way, it would get voted down like 90-10 or 95-5.
I am still confused on what rights they feel hell bent on protecting? Letting convicted felons and illegals vote is not protecting my voting rights. Stating that someone needs to present an I.D to vote is not infringing on any one's ability to vote. The democrats are all about showing cards just to eat now. They are currently trampling our rights, and everyday it gets worse. I agree that both sides just **** everything they touch up and both sides lie cheat and steel to get their way. I do believe that if the government stayed out of much they try to "fix" we would all be better off.
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give". Winston Churchill. MOW badge received.
@Patrickbrick said:
I am still confused on what rights they feel hell bent on protecting? Letting convicted felons and illegals vote is not protecting my voting rights. Stating that someone needs to present an I.D to vote is not infringing on any one's ability to vote. The democrats are all about showing cards just to eat now. They are currently trampling our rights, and everyday it gets worse. I agree that both sides just **** everything they touch up and both sides lie cheat and steel to get their way. I do believe that if the government stayed out of much they try to "fix" we would all be better off.
Seems to me that any "voting rights" legislation proposed by democrats means either more democrats voting or less republicans voting, and any "voting rights" legislation proposed by republicans means the opposite.
If the bill actually protects voters rights, it will pass.
I agree with everything you said, just curious though, do you believe this? I don't, personally. I think it makes a congresspersons first job responsibility harder (getting reelected). I feel like if there was a different bill that actually protected voting rights in a fair way, it would get voted down like 90-10 or 95-5.
Good points. I should have said that if the bill actually protected rights that it SHOULD be passed. I'm also quite skeptical, as I don't believe either side gives a crap about actual voters rights. We've devolved past that point.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@Patrickbrick said:
I am still confused on what rights they feel hell bent on protecting? Letting convicted felons and illegals vote is not protecting my voting rights. Stating that someone needs to present an I.D to vote is not infringing on any one's ability to vote. The democrats are all about showing cards just to eat now. They are currently trampling our rights, and everyday it gets worse. I agree that both sides just **** everything they touch up and both sides lie cheat and steel to get their way. I do believe that if the government stayed out of much they try to "fix" we would all be better off.
How do undocumented "illegals" vote. Walk in and just say "howdey y'all yuck yuck.... can I pretty please vote" not a single person on here has actually witnessed an undocumented person vote. Do you think they just walk in and want to draw attention to themselves? Do you really believe they would put their living in the United States in jeopardy by walking in unregistered, illegal as you say, and just start voting. You actually believe these things. I'm pretty sure if you thought it through you may reconsider.
New York just passed a law, look it up. I'm not talking past elections I am referring to what just happened in New York. Believe me it will spread to other states like Illinois.
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give". Winston Churchill. MOW badge received.
This political threat is hilarious 😆😂😆😂😆😂😆😂😆😂. Thanks for starting it calvin!
I personally don't think that anyone is lining up truck loads of illegal immigrants to vote in our elections because quite frankly, it is way easier for legal citizens to find a way to vote twice.
And let's not dance around the voter ID law and the voter rights law. Showing ID means no mail in ballots. Bottom line end of story.
Republicans don't like voting by mail because doing so gives voting access to a large group of people who tend to lean Democrat and tend to stay home on voting day.
It has nothing to do with the integrity of the count or anything else. It has to do with the fear that more Democrats who don't vote will start to vote because it'll make it easier for them to vote. That's it.
It would be nice if we all stop jerking on each other around and just stated the real reasons for stuff...
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Where did you come up with voter id means no mail in ballots? Have you actually read the Georgia law the are holding up as an example of limiting voters rights? Mail in ballots are available without any reason needed, drop boxes in every precinct. 17 days of in person voting, etc. etc. etc.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
@VegasFrank said:
This political threat is hilarious 😆😂😆😂😆😂😆😂😆😂. Thanks for starting it calvin!
You're welcome! I personally have to be in the right mood to debate politics. Some love it, others have no interest, the hope is that now it has it's own home.
@d_blades said:
Where did you come up with voter id means no mail in ballots? Have you actually read the Georgia law the are holding up as an example of limiting voters rights? Mail in ballots are available without any reason needed, drop boxes in every precinct. 17 days of in person voting, etc. etc. etc.
I have absolutely not read the Georgia law because I don't live in Georgia and I just don't give a fùck about Georgia, no offense to all you Georgia people.
Of course, hard to show ID when your mailing your ballot in. I'd love for you to explain to me and my little pea brain how you show ID when you're mailing your ballot in. Maybe you show your postman? Hey Cliff clavin, come look at my id!
Also please explain to me why someone should "need a reason" for a mail-in ballot before they get one. Maybe their reason is that they won't be able to get to a voting booth that day or during that window. Maybe they don't have a vehicle. Maybe they don't have bus fare. Maybe they can't walk to a polling place because they're on crutches or they're fat.
Maybe none of those reasons are good enough? Maybe I missed that article in the Constitution that said you only get a ballot by pony Express if you have a legitimate prevetted excuse that the government finds valuable.
Maybe if they make over $50,000 a year or maybe if they're white they can get a mail-in ballot.
Maybe, just maybe, this issue is completely divided along partisan lines because both parties think that a certain issue gives an advantage to one party over another.
Maybe people who don't want mail in ballots only don't want them because they think their side is not going to get as many votes.
Don't look up!
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
We have to show our ID's for much less important things than voting, I see no issue with requiring an ID in order to cast your vote. They are readily available, inexpensive, and the vast majority of people already have one anyway. No race is less capable of getting an ID than any other and there are people of color in strong support of voter ID laws.
The security of our elections should be a high priority. Requiring an ID helps make them more secure. I needed an ID when I worked for the public school district, my wife needs one at Social Services. Why? Because ID's increase security.
As far as mail-in ballots go, I have yet to hear anyone talk about doing away with them entirely. I am okay with having them, so long as we have a good way of regulating them. After all, they are easier to falsify.
Just my two cents.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
Perhaps things have greatly changed, but I voted by mail-in ballot for years while in the Army. Frankly, I don't remember how I was "I.D.'d", probably by Social Security number, and it seems that the ballot was mailed to me, personally, but it was long ago.
The thing is, everyone I knew in the military who voted did it this way. At that time, the military was probably 75 / 25 split, Republican / Democrat, judging by the conversations we had. It seems unlikely that the Republicans would want to lose such a large voting block, doesn't it?
So, I think that the whole "do away with the mail-in ballot" thing is yet another example of the parties enjoying the benefits of power created by the friction resulting from yet another wave of propaganda. Just like getting rid of the filibuster. Doubtful that either will work, but if they do then that's just one more desirable consolidation of power, from the viewpoint of those struggling to gain power.
Oh, and I still have to show I.D. to buy a 6-pack of beer, and I'm drawing Social Security. Perhaps our priorities should be examined.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Frank, I certainly hope you're just enjoying stirring the pot. People have been "providing" ID and voting for many years by mail. I did and you probably did. I'm sure they will continue to do so. You certainly know it's not an either/or proposition.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
Those points you made, @Amos_Umwhat, are fairly reasonable, but I'd like to caveat the "large voter block" statement with some statistics.
There are currently a soldier or two under 2 million total active duty personnel.
From my current conversations with current military members, i would estimate that more than 75% lean Republican, but it's a fair enough number.
Let's assume that not all of the 2 million currently reside outside of their state of residence. Many people who come from high personal income tax states such as California established residency in low or no income tax states for which they are assigned, like Texas Florida Nevada and Alaska. Those states have lots of military bases. Let's take 2 million down to 1.5 million for those actually using an absentee ballot and using it correctly so the vote counts.
Because it's harder to request receive and submit an absentee ballot then it is to go to a polling station, let us assume that the voter participation percentage for these military guys is less than the national voter participation rate. The national rate was about 2/3 in 2020. Let's be optimistic and call it 60%. Now we're down to 900,000 military absentee voters.
Finally, let's up your number of 75% military Republican voters to 80%. So out of the 900,000 military voters, about 720,000 voted Republican. Let's just assume it's 750,000.
If 750,000 military members voted Republican in absentee ballots, that means 150,000 of them voted non-republican. The net difference is 600,000 votes, spread across 50 states, of which the largest two are solid blue States.
There was a scosche over 160 million votes cast in the 2020 presidential election. A net plus of 600,000 represents just over a half a percentage point of the total.
So to say that this is a "large block" of voters is probably a little bit of an exaggeration. Even if it's not, I think that any reasonable person would realize that restricting all mail-in ballots would net Republicans a positive expected value.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@peter4jc said:
skosh; nounINFORMAL•US
a small amount; a little.
"the car could do with a skosh more room in the back"
Hey you read my post!
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Comments
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2008/feb/29/memoriam_william_f_buckley_conse
"as
https://stopthedrugwar.org/files/williamfbuckley.jpg
William F. Buckley
William F. Buckley, the dean of American conservatism and advocate of drug legalization, died Wednesday at his home in Connecticut. He was 82.
Buckley, the scion of a wealthy Connecticut family, came to public prominence with the 1951 publication of "God and Man at Yale," a searing critique of what he saw as agnostic and collectivist tendencies among the faculty and curriculum of his alma mater. In 1955, he founded the National Review, the magazine that became the leading voice of post-war American conservatism and helped lead to the conservative renaissance that resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
While Buckley spent much of his career fighting for main-line conservative causes like smaller government, he also used the National Review and his decades-long stint as the host of PBS' "Firing Line" to advance his views in favor of the legalization of drugs. Along with figures like Milton Friedman and George Schulz, Buckley was among the first conservatives to adopt an overtly pro-legalization position.
Writing in the National Review in 1996, Buckley made the case for legalization:
"A conservative should evaluate the practicality of a legal constriction, as for instance in those states whose statute books continue to outlaw sodomy, which interdiction is unenforceable, making the law nothing more than print-on-paper. I came to the conclusion that the so-called war against drugs was not working, that it would not work absent a change in the structure of the civil rights to which we are accustomed and to which we cling as a valuable part of our patrimony. And that therefore if that war against drugs is not working, we should look into what effects the war has, a canvass of the casualties consequent on its failure to work."
In that same article, Buckley expressed abhorrence at the degree to which drug war zealotry infected the criminal justice system:
"I have not spoken of the cost to our society of the astonishing legal weapons available now to policemen and prosecutors; of the penalty of forfeiture of one's home and property for violation of laws which, though designed to advance the war against drugs, could legally be used -- I am told by learned counsel -- as penalties for the neglect of one's pets. I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."
Buckley's erudition, extensive vocabulary, and famously darting tongue, as well as his life-long commitment to conservative principles made him an iconic figure of the late 20th Century. His principled embrace of drug legalization made it all the easier for other conservatives to follow in his footsteps. Hopefully more will follow."
They shouldn't be legalized, but decriminalized. Legalization would bring a whole schlew of issues, but decriminilization would make it easier to get access to help. The current system just encourages users to continue to make bad decisions.
At any given time the urge to sing "In The Jungle" is just a whim away... A whim away... A whim away...
Good point, @Wylaff. An unemployed, desperate addict would probably be no less likely to engage in criminal activity to buy drugs if the drugs were legalized--they would still cost whatever the market would bear.
These drugs inspire their users to do absolutely revolting things in order to get another taste, it truly brings society down.
Again, just regarding this point, this is already happening, and we're not fixing anything. It's like fighting the weather. I'm not of the opinion that drugs are good obviously, I'm just defeated. I give up. I feel that there are 2 choices, and that anyone who invents a third choice is not being realistic:
1) Have drug users doing revolting things, while bringing society down.
2) Have drug users doing revolting things, while bringing society down, and setting billions of dollars on fire.
Your point about drug producers eventually having a lobbying role is a good one, and something I haven't considered. I'd have to think about that before spouting off, I try to avoid doing that when possible.
It's also worth pointing out that none of my political beliefs are actually going to be implemented, so none of this actually matters. Congress is too corrupt. I wonder why I spend time thinking about things like this, and not thinking of unicorns or elves or other hypothetical things that wouldn't depress me like politics does?
@CalvinAndHobo
Sounds like you're out of Julio's Chips...
That's funny that you brought those up in this thread, since they may as well be crack.
Nothing bad goes on in this country without the help or aid of the federal government. They seem to always be involved.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I found this article interesting in that it articulated some of what I was feeling/thinking about Biden's recent speeches. I don't blame Biden, as much as the speechwriters; but at the same time, it's like, doesn't he read this stuff before he reads the teleprompters?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-reaches-break-point-georgia-speech-voting-rights-senate-mcconnell-division-election-law-11642110521
@peter4jc
The speeches are certainly duds, rife with divisiveness and even containing some outright lies (such as him being arrested when fighting for racial equality). I agree that the speechwriters were unwise and that Biden should take greater care of what he is reading on the teleprompter. However, I also like to know where people stand, I don't like being fed a bunch of fluff. In my opinion Biden just made it more clear where he truly stands.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
I think the BIG lie is tying "Voting Rights" to abolishing the filibuster. The filibuster exists primarily to protect the minority opinion. Am I wrong? Wasn't it just a few years ago that the Republicans were trying to get rid of the filibuster? Because they only had a slim majority, just like the Democrats have now?
Sure seems like it. But, I'm old. Perhaps my memory is wrong.
Sure seems like either side is willing to abandon the Constitution whenever they think they have an opportunity to make a power grab and steamroll actual rights of the people. That's the point of a Republic, the majority may be taken in by fluff, smoke & mirrors and horse-apples, the filibuster is there so that doesn't happen so easily.
Leave the Constitution alone. If the bill actually protects voters rights, it will pass. If it's just so much horse-hockey, that's when theatrical obfuscation is desired by those trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Just my opinion.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Biden stands wherever they put him.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
I agree with everything you said, just curious though, do you believe this? I don't, personally. I think it makes a congresspersons first job responsibility harder (getting reelected). I feel like if there was a different bill that actually protected voting rights in a fair way, it would get voted down like 90-10 or 95-5.
I am still confused on what rights they feel hell bent on protecting? Letting convicted felons and illegals vote is not protecting my voting rights. Stating that someone needs to present an I.D to vote is not infringing on any one's ability to vote. The democrats are all about showing cards just to eat now. They are currently trampling our rights, and everyday it gets worse. I agree that both sides just **** everything they touch up and both sides lie cheat and steel to get their way. I do believe that if the government stayed out of much they try to "fix" we would all be better off.
MOW badge received.
Seems to me that any "voting rights" legislation proposed by democrats means either more democrats voting or less republicans voting, and any "voting rights" legislation proposed by republicans means the opposite.
Good points. I should have said that if the bill actually protected rights that it SHOULD be passed. I'm also quite skeptical, as I don't believe either side gives a crap about actual voters rights. We've devolved past that point.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
How do undocumented "illegals" vote. Walk in and just say "howdey y'all yuck yuck.... can I pretty please vote" not a single person on here has actually witnessed an undocumented person vote. Do you think they just walk in and want to draw attention to themselves? Do you really believe they would put their living in the United States in jeopardy by walking in unregistered, illegal as you say, and just start voting. You actually believe these things. I'm pretty sure if you thought it through you may reconsider.
New York just passed a law, look it up. I'm not talking past elections I am referring to what just happened in New York. Believe me it will spread to other states like Illinois.
MOW badge received.
Look into CA as well..
If you want to bomb me send it to Tony @0patience
If you are a newbie I got Dem nachos....
This political threat is hilarious 😆😂😆😂😆😂😆😂😆😂. Thanks for starting it calvin!
I personally don't think that anyone is lining up truck loads of illegal immigrants to vote in our elections because quite frankly, it is way easier for legal citizens to find a way to vote twice.
And let's not dance around the voter ID law and the voter rights law. Showing ID means no mail in ballots. Bottom line end of story.
Republicans don't like voting by mail because doing so gives voting access to a large group of people who tend to lean Democrat and tend to stay home on voting day.
It has nothing to do with the integrity of the count or anything else. It has to do with the fear that more Democrats who don't vote will start to vote because it'll make it easier for them to vote. That's it.
It would be nice if we all stop jerking on each other around and just stated the real reasons for stuff...
Where did you come up with voter id means no mail in ballots? Have you actually read the Georgia law the are holding up as an example of limiting voters rights? Mail in ballots are available without any reason needed, drop boxes in every precinct. 17 days of in person voting, etc. etc. etc.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
You're welcome! I personally have to be in the right mood to debate politics. Some love it, others have no interest, the hope is that now it has it's own home.
I have absolutely not read the Georgia law because I don't live in Georgia and I just don't give a fùck about Georgia, no offense to all you Georgia people.
Of course, hard to show ID when your mailing your ballot in. I'd love for you to explain to me and my little pea brain how you show ID when you're mailing your ballot in. Maybe you show your postman? Hey Cliff clavin, come look at my id!
Also please explain to me why someone should "need a reason" for a mail-in ballot before they get one. Maybe their reason is that they won't be able to get to a voting booth that day or during that window. Maybe they don't have a vehicle. Maybe they don't have bus fare. Maybe they can't walk to a polling place because they're on crutches or they're fat.
Maybe none of those reasons are good enough? Maybe I missed that article in the Constitution that said you only get a ballot by pony Express if you have a legitimate prevetted excuse that the government finds valuable.
Maybe if they make over $50,000 a year or maybe if they're white they can get a mail-in ballot.
Maybe, just maybe, this issue is completely divided along partisan lines because both parties think that a certain issue gives an advantage to one party over another.
Maybe people who don't want mail in ballots only don't want them because they think their side is not going to get as many votes.
Don't look up!
We have to show our ID's for much less important things than voting, I see no issue with requiring an ID in order to cast your vote. They are readily available, inexpensive, and the vast majority of people already have one anyway. No race is less capable of getting an ID than any other and there are people of color in strong support of voter ID laws.
The security of our elections should be a high priority. Requiring an ID helps make them more secure. I needed an ID when I worked for the public school district, my wife needs one at Social Services. Why? Because ID's increase security.
As far as mail-in ballots go, I have yet to hear anyone talk about doing away with them entirely. I am okay with having them, so long as we have a good way of regulating them. After all, they are easier to falsify.
Just my two cents.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
Perhaps things have greatly changed, but I voted by mail-in ballot for years while in the Army. Frankly, I don't remember how I was "I.D.'d", probably by Social Security number, and it seems that the ballot was mailed to me, personally, but it was long ago.
The thing is, everyone I knew in the military who voted did it this way. At that time, the military was probably 75 / 25 split, Republican / Democrat, judging by the conversations we had. It seems unlikely that the Republicans would want to lose such a large voting block, doesn't it?
So, I think that the whole "do away with the mail-in ballot" thing is yet another example of the parties enjoying the benefits of power created by the friction resulting from yet another wave of propaganda. Just like getting rid of the filibuster. Doubtful that either will work, but if they do then that's just one more desirable consolidation of power, from the viewpoint of those struggling to gain power.
Oh, and I still have to show I.D. to buy a 6-pack of beer, and I'm drawing Social Security. Perhaps our priorities should be examined.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Frank, I certainly hope you're just enjoying stirring the pot. People have been "providing" ID and voting for many years by mail. I did and you probably did. I'm sure they will continue to do so. You certainly know it's not an either/or proposition.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
@Hobbes86 is funny, lol.
Those points you made, @Amos_Umwhat, are fairly reasonable, but I'd like to caveat the "large voter block" statement with some statistics.
So to say that this is a "large block" of voters is probably a little bit of an exaggeration. Even if it's not, I think that any reasonable person would realize that restricting all mail-in ballots would net Republicans a positive expected value.
skosh; nounINFORMAL•US
a small amount; a little.
"the car could do with a skosh more room in the back"
Hey you read my post!