There is only on way for average citizens to fight back against Trump, and that involves voting for anyone with a (D) next to their name. Turnout was high. This is the kind of stuff that was happening in 2009, a year before the Republicans took back the House.
I told you Trump was going to be a one-termer and this is the first indication of that. That is why no one should push to impeach him, just let him prattle on send out his endless stream of brainless tweets. At this rate, Republicans may lose the House in 2018 but they will still keep the Senate.
Truly off-year elections, though, generally have absolutely abysmal turnout rates, usually about 15% to 20%. I voted (there were some State resolutions on the ballot along with a handful of city ordinance intiatives). Did the rest of you vote (where applicable)?
@Quickblade *sigh* Tv Tropes. Now I am going to be lost for an hour or two chuckling over things and following link after link in that maze. No worries, though.
Nothing of note in North Dakota (if anything). You are right about off-year elections. Most people simply don't get up for them. Which is why it almost always favors the side who is riding a wave of anger. And is there seems little chance that anger is going to be tempered in the next 12 months. I think after tonight the Dems are the favorites to take back the House, though the Senate will be out of reach. But one chamber switching will destroy Trump's agenda and promises, since he can't even deliver on them with full control of the Federal government.
And no, the most important thing about tonight is not drinking Republican tears. It is the possibility of many people in Virginia and Maine getting access to healthcare. Everything else is just icing on the cake. However, Jeff Flake and Bob Corker are the tip of the iceberg. There are going to be a slew of GOP retirements in the coming months.
And no, the most important thing about tonight is not drinking Republican tears. It is the possibility of many people in Virginia and Maine getting access to healthcare.
At the start of the night, the VA Legislature was 66-34 in favor of Republicans. As of this hour, at a MINIMUM, it is going to be a 50-50 tie. That is insane.
If I were a democrat, which i'm not, i'd be hyped after winning in Virginia even if Trump didn't carry the state in 2016. The enthusiasm gap was a major boon for Trump's campaign and democrats are certainly riding a wave of that now that may extend all the way to the 2018 midterms.
You wouldn't expect gun control to impact the number of instances of violent crime but you would expect it to affect the number of resulting casualties.
That, and whether other violent crimes went up. For example, U.K has very strict firearm laws relative to the U.S, but you hear quite a bit of horrific things like acid attacks. You don't want to trade one form of violent crime for another but instead, reduce violent crime.
How many times have 27 or 50 people been killed by an acid attack within minutes??
That's what trucks are for, apparantly.
I am not sure I follow your line of reasoning here. Since you've made the comparison, can you quote the numbers of total casualties (not just mass attacks) of shootings in US, acid attacks and car attacks in Europe? (In a comparable time frame)
So far as I can find out, there have been around 120 people killed in vehicle based attacks (most in one attack in France) since 2014. None prior to that.
Democrats win all 3 major races tonight. VA and NJ Governor races, NYC Mayor, and, in addition, the first transgender State legislator in VA beat a openly anti-trans opponent. Gillespie, the Republican candidate in VA, ran an explicitly Trump-like campaign, focusing on Confederate monuments and gang violence. Democrats are pissed, and they are voting, even in doomed races like the GA-06 earlier in the year.
They musta got tired of winning, Trump said this would happen if he was elected.
In VA, I've seen reports of voter suppression. Students at college being told they can't vote at the district at the school, only in their home district. On a Tuesday during the school week.
And some "pranksters" hoped to cause confusion. On Twitter a account was active for a couple hours telling Democrats to stay home and vote by text.
There were also robocalls telling people in majority Democratic areas that their voting locations had changed.
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
I went to vote after work. My wife suggested that there might be a line, a notion which I immediately dismissed, telling her "I would be surprised if three people were there". I was right--one person was walking out as I was walking in, then upon entering the voting room I saw that I was the only person there at that time. At least I gave one of the three volunteers something to do for a few minutes.
*************
Trump didn't waste any time throwing the losers under the bus, sending out a tweet which read, "Ed Gillespie worked hard but did not embrace me or what I stand for. Don't forget, Republicans won 4 out of 4 House seats, and with the economy doing record numbers, we will continue to win, even bigger than before!". The problem for Republicans going into 2018 is trying to figure how close to Trump they want to be. Get too close and they might face a disgruntled anti-Trump voter backlash; don't get close enough and the Republican base which does support Trump might not give their support.
It's about healthcare. It was the #1 issue last night in exit polls, and people who listed it as their #1 issue voted at a 75% clip for Democrats. While it was a national election on a small scale in alot fewer places, last night was the first time since Trump was elected that a vast swath of the country got a chance to vote. Most haven't had that chance yet, and are likely salivating at the prospect.
Gillespie tried to straddle that fence. He didn't ask Trump to campaign, but his entire campaign was focused on preserving Confederate monuments and Latino gangs. Im other words, the Bannon playbook. It's too late for Republicans. They can't take back their 5 attempts to take away people's health insurance. They can't explain to the base why they failed with total control. And trying again next year would be suicide based on these results.
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
These tactics (mostly the robocalls) prey on the elderly whose mental capabilities are not what they use to be.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Just because you're gullible doesn't mean criminals should be able to disenfranchise you, thats very cold, and is analogous to a professional boxer assaulting an average Joe because he's weak.
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
These tactics (mostly the robocalls) prey on the elderly whose mental capabilities are not what they use to be.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
I don't like the fact that younger people vote so less often than the elderly due to people's jobs giving them less time to vote, but no, the elderly should not be prevented from voting. The reason we have the vote is not because we're intelligent, not because we're right, not because we're good, and not because we're informed. The reason we have the vote is so that we can use it to defend our interests, and every American citizen has interests worth defending.
Suffrage is not merit-based; it's just there to give people power to control the government.
I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
ANY federal assistance program? Even subtracting the ones you list, you're talking TENS OF MILLIONS of people.
Just off the top of my head: Students who take federal loans People who have subsidized flood insurance (a topic from John Oliver recently) I would say CHIP but they just let it die a month ago and the bill to refund it for 5 years has been stuck in Senate Finance committee for almost 2 months, let alone making it out to get a vote
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
I'd like to suggest two small tweaks here--rather than worrying about mental capabilities for the elderly, we should just make it a blanket test for everyone. And as far as gov't assistance, that's a tougher one to distinguish--we all use federal services, in some capacity or another. I think we should instead focus on trying to exclude the indigent who are simply a drag on the system, and voting for handouts.
Or to put it another way, IQ tests and poll taxes. Surely nothing could go wrong with such ideas in America.
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
These tactics (mostly the robocalls) prey on the elderly whose mental capabilities are not what they use to be.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
This is one step away from saying only land-owners can vote. Buy beyond that, anyone who has ever driven on a road has received government assistance. In fact, I'd argue that any owner of a business who ships products to and from their store has received INFINITELY more government assistance than anyone on welfare programs could dream of simply because of how often their trucks use public roads and cause them to wear down. And that is just a single example.
Well, the problem is that that causes an instant discrimination of the voters.
If you suddenly base voters on who uses/does not use government assistance, how is that going to impact who the politicians that run for office are and the policies they promote and enact?
Yeah, why should crippled army vets be allowed to vote, eh @Balrog99 when they're milking the system!
Ok, you found one example that I didn't think of. I would not extend it to them. However, active military volunteers would fit the bill (not draftees if that ever happens again).
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
These tactics (mostly the robocalls) prey on the elderly whose mental capabilities are not what they use to be.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
This is one step away from saying only land-owners can vote. Buy beyond that, anyone who has ever driven on a road has received government assistance. In fact, I'd argue that any owner of a business who ships products to and from their store has received INFINITELY more government assistance than anyone on welfare programs could dream of simply because of how often their trucks use public roads and cause them to wear down. And that is just a single example.
Not landowners, just folks whose source of income is the government. People on government assistance don't contribute to the roads at all but still use them so I'm not sure what your point is there. If people don't like the roads they can vote for somebody who will fix it. Nobody (or at least very, very few) will vote for anyone who will lower their income...
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
These tactics (mostly the robocalls) prey on the elderly whose mental capabilities are not what they use to be.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
This is one step away from saying only land-owners can vote. Buy beyond that, anyone who has ever driven on a road has received government assistance. In fact, I'd argue that any owner of a business who ships products to and from their store has received INFINITELY more government assistance than anyone on welfare programs could dream of simply because of how often their trucks use public roads and cause them to wear down. And that is just a single example.
Not landowners, just folks whose source of income is the government. People on government assistance don't contribute to the roads at all but still use them so I'm not sure what your point is there. If people don't like the roads they can vote for somebody who will fix it. Nobody (or at least very, very few) will vote for anyone who will lower their income...
You are suggesting a level of disenfranchisement that would make slavery and Jim Crow look quaint, this time spread among every race, creed and color. You are talking about over 100 million people having no say in their government.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
I'd like to suggest two small tweaks here--rather than worrying about mental capabilities for the elderly, we should just make it a blanket test for everyone. And as far as gov't assistance, that's a tougher one to distinguish--we all use federal services, in some capacity or another. I think we should instead focus on trying to exclude the indigent who are simply a drag on the system, and voting for handouts.
Or to put it another way, IQ tests and poll taxes. Surely nothing could go wrong with such ideas in America.
I'd settle for taking the D's and R's off the ballots. That way you'd be voting for a person instead of a party. You might even have to do a little research into who to vote for. How terrible!
It's a very slippery slope once you start deciding who should vote based upon mental capacity. Quite clearly, at least 90% of humans are idiots (99% if you judge it by people who post on the internet). Maybe only people with IQs over 150 are fit to vote?
Then, some intelligent people are scoundrels. Isn't it better that honest, altruistic people vote than self serving scoundrels?
In D&D terms, only give the vote to good aligned people with intelligence and wisdom over 16?
Since there is no way to answer the question of "where to draw the line", you have to fall back on natural justice. Every human is of equal value, irrespective of intelligence, so you have to give every human a vote, irrespective of intelligence.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
I'd like to suggest two small tweaks here--rather than worrying about mental capabilities for the elderly, we should just make it a blanket test for everyone. And as far as gov't assistance, that's a tougher one to distinguish--we all use federal services, in some capacity or another. I think we should instead focus on trying to exclude the indigent who are simply a drag on the system, and voting for handouts.
Or to put it another way, IQ tests and poll taxes. Surely nothing could go wrong with such ideas in America.
I'd settle for taking the D's and R's off the ballots. That way you'd be voting for a person instead of a party. You might even have to do a little research into who to vote for. How terrible!
I may be the only person here who doesn't have a problem with political parties.
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
These tactics (mostly the robocalls) prey on the elderly whose mental capabilities are not what they use to be.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
This is one step away from saying only land-owners can vote. Buy beyond that, anyone who has ever driven on a road has received government assistance. In fact, I'd argue that any owner of a business who ships products to and from their store has received INFINITELY more government assistance than anyone on welfare programs could dream of simply because of how often their trucks use public roads and cause them to wear down. And that is just a single example.
Not landowners, just folks whose source of income is the government. People on government assistance don't contribute to the roads at all but still use them so I'm not sure what your point is there. If people don't like the roads they can vote for somebody who will fix it. Nobody (or at least very, very few) will vote for anyone who will lower their income...
You are suggesting a level of disenfranchisement that would make slavery and Jim Crow look quaint, this time spread among every race, creed and color.
At least I'm equal opportunity! The conservatives would lose of a lot of white trailer park votes and the military vote so it wouldn't be all bad for the liberals. They might even be able to sneak in some gun kaws.
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
These tactics (mostly the robocalls) prey on the elderly whose mental capabilities are not what they use to be.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
Is there a conflict of interest there?
What happens when the party who wants to outright stop all these payments gets voted in? Do they not get a say on how their lives are going to be effected?
All citizens should be allowed to vote because all citizens are affected on how the government is run and where tax dollars are allocated. This includes people the U.S. has already restricted from voting. I personally would even like to see the voting age lowered to 15/16. At that age, you are old enough to hold down a job and drive, therefore are being taxed. You should be able to state where that money is being allocated. Yes, they may have authority figures that can heavily influence the way they vote, however, many adults say the same thing (my granddaddy always voted republican so, so do I)
Since there is no way to answer the question of "where to draw the line", you have to fall back on natural justice. Every human is of equal value, irrespective of intelligence, so you have to give every human a vote, irrespective of intelligence.
I find that an interesting fallacy that is often taken to ridiculous extremes in modern discourse. "Every human is of equal value" is not logically equivalent to "every human's opinion is of equal value". An expert's opinion is more valuable than a layman's. At least, I think it should be.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
I'd like to suggest two small tweaks here--rather than worrying about mental capabilities for the elderly, we should just make it a blanket test for everyone. And as far as gov't assistance, that's a tougher one to distinguish--we all use federal services, in some capacity or another. I think we should instead focus on trying to exclude the indigent who are simply a drag on the system, and voting for handouts.
Or to put it another way, IQ tests and poll taxes. Surely nothing could go wrong with such ideas in America.
I'd settle for taking the D's and R's off the ballots. That way you'd be voting for a person instead of a party. You might even have to do a little research into who to vote for. How terrible!
I may be the only person here who doesn't have a problem with political parties.
Probably because you agree with yours a great majority of the time. Neither party comes close to representing me and I'm sure many people feel the same way.
Comments
And no, the most important thing about tonight is not drinking Republican tears. It is the possibility of many people in Virginia and Maine getting access to healthcare. Everything else is just icing on the cake. However, Jeff Flake and Bob Corker are the tip of the iceberg. There are going to be a slew of GOP retirements in the coming months.
So far as I can find out, there have been around 120 people killed in vehicle based attacks (most in one attack in France) since 2014. None prior to that.
I went to vote after work. My wife suggested that there might be a line, a notion which I immediately dismissed, telling her "I would be surprised if three people were there". I was right--one person was walking out as I was walking in, then upon entering the voting room I saw that I was the only person there at that time. At least I gave one of the three volunteers something to do for a few minutes.
*************
Trump didn't waste any time throwing the losers under the bus, sending out a tweet which read, "Ed Gillespie worked hard but did not embrace me or what I stand for. Don't forget, Republicans won 4 out of 4 House seats, and with the economy doing record numbers, we will continue to win, even bigger than before!". The problem for Republicans going into 2018 is trying to figure how close to Trump they want to be. Get too close and they might face a disgruntled anti-Trump voter backlash; don't get close enough and the Republican base which does support Trump might not give their support.
Gillespie tried to straddle that fence. He didn't ask Trump to campaign, but his entire campaign was focused on preserving Confederate monuments and Latino gangs. Im other words, the Bannon playbook. It's too late for Republicans. They can't take back their 5 attempts to take away people's health insurance. They can't explain to the base why they failed with total control. And trying again next year would be suicide based on these results.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Suffrage is not merit-based; it's just there to give people power to control the government.
Just off the top of my head:
Students who take federal loans
People who have subsidized flood insurance (a topic from John Oliver recently)
I would say CHIP but they just let it die a month ago and the bill to refund it for 5 years has been stuck in Senate Finance committee for almost 2 months, let alone making it out to get a vote
Or to put it another way, IQ tests and poll taxes. Surely nothing could go wrong with such ideas in America.
If you suddenly base voters on who uses/does not use government assistance, how is that going to impact who the politicians that run for office are and the policies they promote and enact?
Then, some intelligent people are scoundrels. Isn't it better that honest, altruistic people vote than self serving scoundrels?
In D&D terms, only give the vote to good aligned people with intelligence and wisdom over 16?
Since there is no way to answer the question of "where to draw the line", you have to fall back on natural justice. Every human is of equal value, irrespective of intelligence, so you have to give every human a vote, irrespective of intelligence.
What happens when the party who wants to outright stop all these payments gets voted in? Do they not get a say on how their lives are going to be effected?
All citizens should be allowed to vote because all citizens are affected on how the government is run and where tax dollars are allocated. This includes people the U.S. has already restricted from voting. I personally would even like to see the voting age lowered to 15/16. At that age, you are old enough to hold down a job and drive, therefore are being taxed. You should be able to state where that money is being allocated. Yes, they may have authority figures that can heavily influence the way they vote, however, many adults say the same thing (my granddaddy always voted republican so, so do I)