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.
I think if you want to do the two week thing, that is reasonable. But as long as you make mail in ballots the norm, there is going to be a large portion of the population that doesn't trust our election results, to varying degrees. That is not a good thing, which should be obvious by now. There is just too much room for shenanigans.
Mail in ballots should be reserved for military overseas, and people with documented physical disabilities. Everybody else should have to vote in person and show ID. Do it over two weeks if you want. Hell, do it over whole a month if you want, but make sure all votes are real by making them come in person and show ID.
ID isn't happening because Democrats don't want it. Wonder why? Not really. I know why. They cheat.
Frittering away global hegemony with a war of choice that was sold on a pack of lies and lost?
Crashing the economy in a second Great Depression that was only softened because we implemented Keynesian stimulus measures? In other words, from the other team's toolbox.
How soon people forget the misrule of the Bush years.
Mail in ballots shouldn’t be allowed. Too vulnerable to fraud. Eliminate the mail ins and you might have more than one party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT
That is just not backed up by facts
Read ANY book on voter fraud.
You're repeating media talking points. This is EXTREMELY well known and understood, by those who understand elections. Mail in voting is *THE* primary way that elections are rigged.
You're free to believe that the Democrats are altruistic in their intentions, but you can't deny the opportunity for fraud that universal mail-in voting would create. SOMEONE will take advantage of that, guaranteed. There's too much to gain and very little risk. OF COURSE it will lead to rigged elections.
It feels that way because you been captured by narrative warfare, the side that started by offering you the most compatible worldview that the one you already held, has build a story for you with villains and heroes. Its shame that so many people listen to someone like Jordan Peterson but wont read Girard or any of the basis for his lectures to really see the whole elephant.
Verily, I have not even heard of either person you cite. I have read many others though. One I keep seeing parallels with is not a long book but that makes it no less poignant. Ngyuen Giap, Peoples War Peoples Army. Another that goes hand in hand with that work would be Tsun Tsu, The Art of War. I don't and haven't for some time watched or listened to any cable news or talk show pundits. I assure you the "whole elephant" is quite apparent to me. And it's not such a complicated animal.
You're not the first by far to cite not so well known literary works to me thinking I will cower before vast knowledge that is unknown to me. No, I have not perused Girard, (though I may as another treatise previously mentioned tells me not to dismiss the enemies ways) but as I said I'm hardly unread. Much of what I'm seeing these days can also be found in the writings of Mao. Just about any psychotic dictator has a manifesto and they all say pretty much the same thing.
No, I have not been "captured" by anything or anyone. Except perhaps two notable exceptions those being a wonderful lady and my very precocious granddaughter.
The Trumpski-led GOP seems intent on making sure it doesn't return to power for many years. The remaining rational members are leaving the party in droves.
ID isn't happening because Democrats don't want it. Wonder why? Not really. I know why. They cheat.
You have proof of that? I have not seen many fraudulent mail in ballots - I believe there are more fraudulent republican ballots than democratic but either way it is an insignificant percentage and certainly not changing any elections.
I know you're not going to like this, but the answer is obvious.
The Democrats are powerful primarily because of wealth and income inequality. The economy isn't fair and people are mad about it.
Republicans won't return to power until wealth is redistributed. The Democrats have been empowered by the people to redistribute wealth.
You can complain until you are blue in the face, but this is the reality. We have inequality almost as high as in the late 1920s. What followed after that? Forty years of Democratic rule until inequality bottomed out in the 70s.
So that's the future.
There is no future timeline where Republican policies that primarily benefit the rich are allowed to continue by the public. There is no future where inequality keeps growing on the same trend line as it has been for the past forty years. There is no future where a country with democratic elections allows a feudal system to grow in its midst.
If you want Republican rule to return earlier than that, you need to ditch the policies that benefit rich people. If you want someone to blame, blame the recent Republican Congress which only passed a tax cut and sat on its hands for every single other policy clamored for by the people and Republican voters.
You should blame business leaders who want more immigration precisely because it drives down wages and lowers the cost of training.
You should blame Wall Street for crashing the economy in 2007. That's when the Republican party died. Trumpism is something new and it's viable. The old Republican party won't be coming back for forty years or more.
So say goodbye to tax cuts, and worshipping business tycoons and Wall Street, and shipping all of the jobs overseas. Say goodbye to no increases in the real minimum wage for thirty years, and destroying labor unions, and destroying society in general for the sake of the almighty dollar.
The rich got everything they wanted for forty years and gave scraps to everybody else, including their coalition members in the conservative movement. They've made a lot of enemies and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
This is a good post^^^^ I don't agree with every point, but the gist of it is correct. From Occupy DC to the Tea Party to Trumpism, these movements were fueled by the feeling of being left out of prosperity / recovery (it's also what led to the rise of Nazism in the 20s and 30s, BTW). Populism is a powerful force, but it easily gets hijacked by dictators and cults of personality. The only example of successfully harnessing the power of populism that I can think of is Teddy Roosevelt. TR's positions would be closer to today's progressive democrats than today's GOP.
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.
