Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sure, if you want to do that by all means proceed with it, but I have absolutely no interest in pursuing this issue.
Neither do I so I'll stick with my feeling that increasing voter turnout results in poorer choices. My logic in that is that the most interested and informed voters would already be voting and the increase would largely consist of people that are less interested and informed but voting simply because it has become easier or they feel more pressured to.
Since republicans are never going to win in Cali anyway, could they pack up and strategically move to Michigan Wisconsin Pennsylvania Ohio and North Carolina?
130 cops were beat up on that day but this one was in "zero danger"?
Are you kidding me? Yes, this one was in no danger and knew it. Whether 130 cops were beat up or not is immaterial. This one was in no danger and shot an unarmed woman. He should have been tried for murder.
It was implicit that showing an id meant authenticating the id.
Why authenticate the ID when you can authenticate the person? You could authenticate the person with a signature match. The drivers license, with it's little signature and the 3 year old photo is not much help.
The ID (drivers license or other) can be useful if the signature match is a problem, like when the person has the shakes, maybe getting old or something. It serves as a good back up for the election judges to review.
Are you kidding me? Yes, this one was in no danger and knew it. Whether 130 cops were beat up or not is immaterial. This one was in no danger and shot an unarmed woman. He should have been tried for murder.
She was a traitor, breaking in.
How would you feel if she was a Muslim leading a bunch of angry Muslims into the capitol building? The act itself was wrong, she had no place there, she broke the law and she was warned.
I think she was nuts, driven crazy by all the lies about a stolen election. Those liars are at fault here. They placed her in harm's way.
She knew the risks. That's why those cops carry guns, precisely for this reason. Otherwise, what is the point of even arming them, the thing isn't an ornament. If they are not supposed to use weapons perhaps they should be disarmed, but would that be wise?
A few corrections, Tim, as someone who lives in California. My answers are in bold..
Your answers are absurd. How about answering in a format that allows discussion, as I did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
