how many times have you seen a leftist call out a (D) politician?

[colfax_m]

Why would she?

Because supposedly it was totally obvious she committed a crime and the only thing protecting her were corrupt prosecutors beholden to Democrats.

Or is that bullshit?

 

[XponentialChaos]

What post # did you ask for Cuomo to step down?

You can go look for it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

So, again, what post did you condemn Cuomo?

He deserves criticism. You can go find it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Please.

if he did choose to say something intelligent, you'd simply not understand it.

I guess we’ll find out when he chooses to say something intelligent.

 

[XponentialChaos]

you up on the latest playground conversations?

and you sit and ask others to be intelligent.

I prefer something more than mindless name-calling.

Is there a problem?

 

[Coyote]

Illinois Democrats Trying to Eliminate Two Republican Seats in Redistricting

It's no secret that the plan for a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives includes fiddling with district lines in red states that are adding seats

pjmedia.com

Countdown to your rage at this action.

I'm not going to be baited.

I oppose gerrymandering period. It's one of the issues the new voting act legislation addresses. Both parties use it. But right now far more state legislatures are controlled by Republicans and THOSE legislatures are the ones passing legislation disguised as "protecting elections" that are in fact designed discourage opposition voters. I support non-partisan redistricting regardless of which party controls what. How about you?

Gerrymandering Threat Index shows 35 States In Danger Of Rigged Maps For Next Decade

/PRNewswire/ -- Thirty-five states are at extreme or high risk of partisan gerrymandering, according to an in-depth, one-of-a-kind report released by the...

www.prnewswire.com

 

[Coyote]

how many ways do you need to vote? not having 10000 ways to vote isn't a bad thing. with voting comes responsibility and if you treat it like a big Mac, I don't think you respect it.

Over time, our methods of casting a ballot have changed to reflect the changing nature of our society. Are you suggesting that we close the door on improving? Do you have an issue with increasing voter access to the process? How is that "not respecting it"? Going by the article below...which change in how we vote constitutes "not respecting it" and why?

The Evolution of Voting From Counting Beans to Computer Hacking

Many jurisdictions are abandoning electronic voting and going back to strictly paper ballots.

observer.com

drive thru voting must be available? concealed permit means your ID is proven. a student ID means you went to school.

Why should it not be available? Is it any less secure? What rational reason is there for saying no?

I can think of many positive reasons. Most importantly, reducing congestion in polling places and reducing long waits and lines in places with a heavy turn out. Easier for people to leave work and vote more quickly and return - sort of a one stop voting. It reflects the changes occuring in today's society where almost everything seems to have a drive through version from banking to pharmacies to liquor stores.

Pretty sure your wrong on the student ID. At our state university, you need to provide documentation and proof of identity as part of the process to get your ID. It is at least as valid as the id's conservatives prefer (which ironically, are more likely to be held by conservative voters).

the dems redustrict to their advantage all the time but you call out the other side for practices both sides do.

Really don't care who is redistricting. They all do it to their advantage. I'm a proponent of non-partisan redistricting. I'm not going bother with equal opportunity "calling out" just to please everyone. Main difference now is Republicans are attempting to pass LEGISLATION cementing their advantage by changing voting laws in conjuction with redistricting. Do you really think this is good? For example - in one, the state legislature can overturn the results of an election if they think it is fraudulant. If they "think" it is. Which really means there is no evidence needed (since if actual systemic fraud at the level of changing the results was found it would invalidate the election in the court challenges) - it means if they lose they can claim fraud and overturn it. That is pretty damn dangerous regardless of what party is behind it.

demanding your side gets benefits ofe ase while bitching at the other side for daring to do self. protection measures also is the height of why we have issues.

we should all play by the same rules.

period.

Of course we should all play by the same rules. So, with that in mind - who is NOT getting benefits from:
24 hour voting
Drive through voting

Just to use two examples.

 

[iceberg]

Over time, our methods of casting a ballot have changed to reflect the changing nature of our society. Are you suggesting that we close the door on improving? Do you have an issue with increasing voter access to the process? How is that "not respecting it"? Going by the article below...which change in how we vote constitutes "not respecting it" and why?

The Evolution of Voting From Counting Beans to Computer Hacking

Many jurisdictions are abandoning electronic voting and going back to strictly paper ballots.

observer.com

Why should it not be available? Is it any less secure? What rational reason is there for saying no?

I can think of many positive reasons. Most importantly, reducing congestion in polling places and reducing long waits and lines in places with a heavy turn out. Easier for people to leave work and vote more quickly and return - sort of a one stop voting. It reflects the changes occuring in today's society where almost everything seems to have a drive through version from banking to pharmacies to liquor stores.

Pretty sure your wrong on the student ID. At our state university, you need to provide documentation and proof of identity as part of the process to get your ID. It is at least as valid as the id's conservatives prefer (which ironically, are more likely to be held by conservative voters).




Really don't care who is redistricting. They all do it to their advantage. I'm a proponent of non-partisan redistricting. I'm not going bother with equal opportunity "calling out" just to please everyone. Main difference now is Republicans are attempting to pass LEGISLATION cementing their advantage by changing voting laws in conjuction with redistricting. Do you really think this is good? For example - in one, the state legislature can overturn the results of an election if they think it is fraudulant. If they "think" it is. Which really means there is no evidence needed (since if actual systemic fraud at the level of changing the results was found it would invalidate the election in the court challenges) - it means if they lose they can claim fraud and overturn it. That is pretty damn dangerous regardless of what party is behind it.



Of course we should all play by the same rules. So, with that in mind - who is NOT getting benefits from:
24 hour voting
Drive through voting

Just to use two examples.

first, I wasn't baiting. I'm simply pointing out when the left does it to their advantage to see if you would hold the same rage.

now, no rules to an election should be changed without going through proper process and the rules need to be fair and equitable to both sides.

or you are trying to stack the deck.

in 2020, many states bypassed their own processes to change voting processes.

now, if these new methods are secure as you say, then the big businesses will follow the same process. only Amazon showed they will speak. out both sides of their mouth.

and a bulk of these changes favored the left. these are documented to be as such.

while I agree we need to update and secure our voting process, I fully disagree one side should be driving the changes and calling anyone who doesn't follow their ideas as against voter rights.

this tendency to demonize those who disagree with us is childish and tearing us apart.

 

[Coyote]

first, I wasn't baiting. I'm simply pointing out when the left does it to their advantage to see if you would hold the same rage.

Apologies then, it felt like bait. I stated and state again I'm not going to bother trying to be equal in every single post ok? No one is.

now, no rules to an election should be changed without going through proper process and the rules need to be fair and equitable to both sides.

True, there is a proper way. During the pandemic both parties put out changes that addressed how we vote in order to accommodate pandemic conditions.

Here's how states have changed the rules around voting amid the coronavirus pandemic

Voting is always confusing, but the coronavirus pandemic has made it even more so -- here's what you need to know about how voting has changed for the general election.

abcnews.go.com

I believe only one state did not do so completely properly though no one bothered to challenge throughout the primaries or through the general election, until afterwards.

Fair and equitable - when it comes to voting, these conditions are met by:

1. There is no attempted disenfranchisement (remember NC's law, where the judge used the term "surgical precision")...of any legitimate voter.

2. It expands access to all people equally within the jurisdiction. For example all people can use drive through voting regardless of who they vote for.

3. It does not act to inhibit voting access or rights for any group.

That is reasonable don't you think?

or you are trying to stack the deck.

The reality is EVERYONE tries to stack the deck to benefit themselves. Where I see a difference is with this. Are they trying to stack the deck by restricting voting access or expanding voting access? If the ONLY way a team can get an advantage is by RESTRICTING access...then don't you think there is something wrong with that? From my point of view - I want no one's rights and access to vote restricted, even if I loathe what they represent.

in 2020, many states bypassed their own processes to change voting processes.

I think (and you can correct me if I am wrong) - only one state violated their rules in how these were passed, not "many".

now, if these new methods are secure as you say, then the big businesses will follow the same process. only Amazon showed they will speak. out both sides of their mouth.

I'm confused as to what you are saying here? Don't see how that is relevant?

and a bulk of these changes favored the left. these are documented to be as such.

That's kind of subjective - if they "favored the left" by allowing more people to vote, how is that bad? And, doesn't it depend on where it occurred? For example, mail in ballots in some areas encouraged far more Democrats to actually vote. Not a bad thing because I SUPPORT people's right to vote. But yet, a staunch red state like Utah has had mail in voting (with automatic mailing of ballots to registered voters) for years and it's as red as ever.

while I agree we need to update and secure our voting process, I fully disagree one side should be driving the changes and calling anyone who doesn't follow their ideas as against voter rights.

I think when you try to pass legislation under the guise of "election security" that in fact is nothing to do with security but instead tries to suppress voters of certain demographics then it is fair those people as "against voting rights".

this tendency to demonize those who disagree with us is childish and tearing us apart.

Oh agree. And I think though we don't agree we're having a decent respectful convo here.

 

[CowboyTed]

first, I wasn't baiting. I'm simply pointing out when the left does it to their advantage to see if you would hold the same rage.

now, no rules to an election should be changed without going through proper process and the rules need to be fair and equitable to both sides.

or you are trying to stack the deck.

in 2020, many states bypassed their own processes to change voting processes.

now, if these new methods are secure as you say, then the big businesses will follow the same process. only Amazon showed they will speak. out both sides of their mouth.

and a bulk of these changes favored the left. these are documented to be as such.

while I agree we need to update and secure our voting process, I fully disagree one side should be driving the changes and calling anyone who doesn't follow their ideas as against voter rights.

this tendency to demonize those who disagree with us is childish and tearing us apart.

Can we point out that Florida voted to allow ex Felons to vote and the GOP did everything in their power to not implement it..

They ignored the will of people..

 

[xyz]

Sinema, Manchin, Tulsi Gabbard.

To a lesser extent Buttigieg and others. Democrats call out other Democrats once in a while.

 

[jc456]

Because supposedly it was totally obvious she committed a crime and the only thing protecting her were corrupt prosecutors beholden to Democrats.

Or is that bullshit?

Trump said he wasn’t going after her?

 

[jc456]

He deserves criticism. You can go find it.

He deserves to be locked up!

 

[jc456]

Can we point out that Florida voted to allow ex Felons to vote and the GOP did everything in their power to not implement it..

They ignored the will of people..

The will of the people don’t want mandates!! So why are the demofks pushing it?

 

[colfax_m]

Trump said he wasn’t going after her?

So does Trump make decisions about who gets prosecuted? I was accused of being a moron for stating this was even possible.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump said he wasn’t going after her?

On a related note, Trump lied because he said he was going to go after her.

 

[jc456]

So does Trump make decisions about who gets prosecuted? I was accused of being a moron for stating this was even possible.

He’s over them right? The better question is why didn’t comey?

 

[jc456]

On a related note, Trump lied because he said he was going to go after her.

He changed his mind after inauguration. Are you saying xiden ran on higher gas prices?

 

[sartre play]

Always question those who are suppose to be working for us. There are no perfect people and money & power corrupt. IF we don't question and blindly follow what we get is people calling each other Nazis or Commies. few of us fit either of those descriptions. And we have way to many political wacko's and they don't all come from one party.

 

[jc456]

Always question those who are suppose to be working for us. There are no perfect people and money & power corrupt. IF we don't question and blindly follow what we get is people calling each other Nazis or Commies. few of us fit either of those descriptions. And we have way to many political wacko's and they don't all come from one party.

Demofks don’t TGI like that