Repeal the Income Tax for starts. Strictly interpret Art 1 Sec 8 enumerated powers, none of this using the taxing power to create laws that aren’t based on Section 8. If it’s not enumerated there, it’s on the states. The reason they have power is because we let them have it.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Repeal the Income Tax for starts

Repeal Income Tax? And roll back to the 19th century? Would you want to abolish the defense department, planes , automobiles, the internet, healthcare, and education as well?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

ztarizona wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

I know it's off year and not much going on. I feel Murphy has done well in NJ (wish he was NY Governor) and will be re-elected rather easily. All eyes on Virginia as it seems the state may elect a Red Governor. I do think Biden's horrible year is playing into this election and it will be interesting to see the outcome. If Youngkin wins It will be interesting to see if the Dem party reverses course and stops with the AOC progressive stuff for it's hurting them heading into a huge mid term election next year and moving toward the middle would be the logical choice since none of their legislation has any chance at passing without Manchin and Sinema.

Lets discuss.

The "middle" where we pay our politicians 150k a year so they can reap campaign contributions from big pharma and corporations to keep each of us busy, sick and numb. Yeah, no.

Then, join me in seeking to drastically reduce politicians powers so they won’t be getting captured by the money. Politicians are gritting us—take away their influence and you’ll take away their money

More than a few people have suggested this in the wake of Citizens United.

Yes, true self-government. Technology isn’t dependent on government. Cars were developed before the Income tax, A military is clearly covered in Section 8 as a power given Congress. We fought several wars before the income tax.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, true self-government.

True Self Government? So now you are talking about secession from the US. Go ahead and get your state to buy into that.

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, true self-government.

True Self Government? So now you are talking about secession from the US. Go ahead and get your state to buy into that.

Straw man argument, never said anything like that. You do know there was a USG prior to 1916?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, true self-government.

True Self Government? So now you are talking about secession from the US. Go ahead and get your state to buy into that.

Straw man argument, never said anything like that. You do know there was a USG prior to 1916?

you do know that the federal Government used to levy tariffs prior to the 16th amendment on goods right? It unfairly taxed the poor. The "south and west" are the regions that pushed heavily for income taxes so that the Rich would not get richer while they get poorer.

Well I for one do not support the idea of a weak USA. And that is what would happen if the above suggestion happened. Power may corrupt but it is our power, power I am not willing to secede to other nations.

Tugg

What I'd like taught in all schools is the complete history of slavery, whether it was race based, or not. As it happened, all over the world, for recorded history. This for context.

Now to be sure, imo, the slave system of the Confederacy, was 100% based on White Supremacy -- over the Black race. And for them, it was to last, in perpetuity in their Confederate States. That great evil was defeated by the Civil War, but elements in the South wanted virtual white supremacy over the blacks in their states, and devised many things to enable that, like the Poll Tax and Voting Tests.

But, as I grew up in the 60's and 70's, in suburban Texas, I never felt like I was being taught, overtly, or covertly, a white supremacy over blacks, or any other race, in the schools. I guess I was sheltered, in that I do not ever remember seeing a Whites Only water fountain, for example.

I am tired of those that view every legislative move, today, as being motivated by the boogeyman "White Supremacy." Tired of all the straw man arguments. "There's a racist under ever bed" kind of thing. Racial hatred and bigotry exists in all cultures and countries. That doesn't make it right, but it's not something unique to the US. It's universal.

I have yet to understand why CRT has become such a big deal in America all of a sudden. I went through high school more recently than some of the people on this thread, and I can tell you, the history teachers spent about 1 day in all 4 years discussing CRT. And in that, it was specifically mentioned as a theory, hence the name. I would be extremely surprised if the topic had more 2 pages in ANY textbox. Genuinely, if a certain crowd on TV and karen parents are getting so triggered by this, I'd wager they would have a heart attack when they find out that there are entire units and weeks spent in the classroom teaching about the black panthers and Malcolm X

DIRECTFLT wrote:

What I'd like taught in all schools is the complete history of slavery, whether it was race based, or not. As it happened, all over the world, for recorded history. This for context.

Now to be sure, imo, the slave system of the Confederacy, was 100% based on White Supremacy -- over the Black race. And for them, it was to last, in perpetuity in their Confederate States. That great evil was defeated by the Civil War, but elements in the South wanted virtual white supremacy over the blacks in their states, and devised many things to enable that, like the Poll Tax and Voting Tests.

But, as I grew up in the 60's and 70's, in suburban Texas, I never felt like I was being taught, overtly, or covertly, a white supremacy over blacks, or any other race, in the schools. I guess I was sheltered, in that I do not ever remember seeing a Whites Only water fountain, for example.

I am tired of those that view every legislative move, today, as being motivated by the boogeyman "White Supremacy." Tired of all the straw man arguments. "There's a racist under ever bed" kind of thing. Racial hatred and bigotry exists in all cultures and countries. That doesn't make it right, but it's not something unique to the US. It's universal.

You have never lived in the deep south.

https://greensboro.com/community/rockin ... 33f31.html

“A white student had called a Black student a monkey,” Tillman told The Associated Press, as she relayed her son’s account. “When the Black student educated him on that being racist and him not liking it and not to call him that and asked the teacher for support, the teacher turned around and said to him: ‘Oh, it’s OK. We’re all a little bit racist.’”

The Black student then called the white student a “cracker,” to which the teacher responded with a threat of disciplinary action, Tillman said.

casinterest wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

What I'd like taught in all schools is the complete history of slavery, whether it was race based, or not. As it happened, all over the world, for recorded history. This for context.

Now to be sure, imo, the slave system of the Confederacy, was 100% based on White Supremacy -- over the Black race. And for them, it was to last, in perpetuity in their Confederate States. That great evil was defeated by the Civil War, but elements in the South wanted virtual white supremacy over the blacks in their states, and devised many things to enable that, like the Poll Tax and Voting Tests.

But, as I grew up in the 60's and 70's, in suburban Texas, I never felt like I was being taught, overtly, or covertly, a white supremacy over blacks, or any other race, in the schools. I guess I was sheltered, in that I do not ever remember seeing a Whites Only water fountain, for example.

I am tired of those that view every legislative move, today, as being motivated by the boogeyman "White Supremacy." Tired of all the straw man arguments. "There's a racist under ever bed" kind of thing. Racial hatred and bigotry exists in all cultures and countries. That doesn't make it right, but it's not something unique to the US. It's universal.

You have never lived in the deep south.

https://greensboro.com/community/rockin ... 33f31.html

“A white student had called a Black student a monkey,” Tillman told The Associated Press, as she relayed her son’s account. “When the Black student educated him on that being racist and him not liking it and not to call him that and asked the teacher for support, the teacher turned around and said to him: ‘Oh, it’s OK. We’re all a little bit racist.’”

The Black student then called the white student a “cracker,” to which the teacher responded with a threat of disciplinary action, Tillman said.

To his credit, he did say suburban texas, which is like another country in comparison to rural, eastern texas

DIRECTFLT wrote:

What I'd like taught in all schools is the complete history of slavery, whether it was race based, or not. As it happened, all over the world, for recorded history. This for context.

Now to be sure, imo, the slave system of the Confederacy, was 100% based on White Supremacy -- over the Black race. And for them, it was to last, in perpetuity in their Confederate States. That great evil was defeated by the Civil War, but elements in the South wanted virtual white supremacy over the blacks in their states, and devised many things to enable that, like the Poll Tax and Voting Tests.

But, as I grew up in the 60's and 70's, in suburban Texas, I never felt like I was being taught, overtly, or covertly, a white supremacy over blacks, or any other race, in the schools. I guess I was sheltered, in that I do not ever remember seeing a Whites Only water fountain, for example.

I am tired of those that view every legislative move, today, as being motivated by the boogeyman "White Supremacy." Tired of all the straw man arguments. "There's a racist under ever bed" kind of thing. Racial hatred and bigotry exists in all cultures and countries. That doesn't make it right, but it's not something unique to the US. It's universal.

I agree with most all you say. I am not racist, was brought up specifically not be, that it was not OK (my father had spent many years in South Africa during segregation and could not stand what he saw). None of my family was here in the US during the time of slavery either. Everyone arriving long after. However I also realize that due to slavery and the widespread segregation and societal structure that remained, most "people of color" were at a grave disadvantage when getting a job or buying a house, even going to school or selling their own wares or just eating out etc. And this impacted the ability to build wealth, to not stay in debt. So I am the beneficiary of that. I don't have that baggage.

Not that I am willing to cede one dime to others because of this, nor give others a pass to "get in front" if me or anything like that. But I recognize the issue and that we, well I need to face it and be aware of it and be willing to discuss it.

I work hard everyday, I earned everything I have. No one else has rights to what is mine. But no matter how hard anyone tries, we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. It is just a fact.

Tugg

I tried searching for evidence that there’s an agenda in schools to “ram race and gender issues down throats” like “6 year old kids are being taught they’re responsible for slavery”.

Couldn’t find a single piece of evidence from a credible source that there is a school curriculum with that message. Others can feel free to post verified evidence from a credible source but I couldn’t find any.

Polls have shown that while parents in heavy GOP districts are opposed to critical race theory if the question is changed to “do you support teaching the ongoing effects of slavery?” they are in support. It’s just Republican fearmongering about the term CRT when in reality if you explain to them what it is they’re generally OK with it. Reminds me of a group of Republican voters I saw interviewed a few years back who expressed outrage over “Obamacare” but were generally supportive of the “Affordable Care Act”......

I did find some evidence of a disturbing agenda being taught about slavery in a North Carolina school. Not “marxists” or “liberals” brainwashing kids with self hate, but a task for students to explain why black people “made good slaves”.....

And here’s the evidence:

https://www.wbtv.com/story/36663243/que ... d-parents/

Tugger wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

What I'd like taught in all schools is the complete history of slavery, whether it was race based, or not. As it happened, all over the world, for recorded history. This for context.

Now to be sure, imo, the slave system of the Confederacy, was 100% based on White Supremacy -- over the Black race. And for them, it was to last, in perpetuity in their Confederate States. That great evil was defeated by the Civil War, but elements in the South wanted virtual white supremacy over the blacks in their states, and devised many things to enable that, like the Poll Tax and Voting Tests.

But, as I grew up in the 60's and 70's, in suburban Texas, I never felt like I was being taught, overtly, or covertly, a white supremacy over blacks, or any other race, in the schools. I guess I was sheltered, in that I do not ever remember seeing a Whites Only water fountain, for example.

I am tired of those that view every legislative move, today, as being motivated by the boogeyman "White Supremacy." Tired of all the straw man arguments. "There's a racist under ever bed" kind of thing. Racial hatred and bigotry exists in all cultures and countries. That doesn't make it right, but it's not something unique to the US. It's universal.

I agree with most all you say. I am not racist, was brought up specifically not be, that it was not OK (my father had spent many years in South Africa during segregation and could not stand what he saw). None of my family was here in the US during the time of slavery either. Everyone arriving long after. However I also realize that due to slavery and the widespread segregation and societal structure that remained, most "people of color" were at a grave disadvantage when getting a job or buying a house, even going to school or selling their own wares or just eating out etc. And this impacted the ability to build wealth, to not stay in debt. So I am the beneficiary of that. I don't have that baggage.

Not that I am willing to cede one dime to others because of this, nor give others a pass to "get in front" if me or anything like that. But I recognize the issue and that we, well I need to face it and be aware of it and be willing to discuss it.

I work hard everyday, I earned everything I have. No one else has rights to what is mine. But no matter how hard anyone tries, we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. It is just a fact.

Tugg

Your views mirror my experience and the views of most of my family and social circle. We would be far better off as a country if this kind of empathy were more widespread.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

It was just an example of how I saw first hand what was being taught. Without getting into the weeds, the teacher basically said that hate speech isn't protected under the 1st. That is completely wrong, regardless of how disgusting the speech is, you have the right to say it.

Okay, if it was couched in that way, sure that’s erroneous information. But it’s not ‘completely wrong’ depending on level of nuance. If the teacher explained that some cases may incur a different standard, such as hate speech in school that includes obscenity, the school could use the latter for discipline because obscenity is not protected.

I’m just not sure where the obvious ‘political injection’ was - they simply may not be up on SCOTUS decisions or did not explain with enough care.

I sat in on the class after what I heard, no she was not addressing anything related to school. The politics came in when she started to talk about Charlottesville and Trump relating to hate speech and the 1st. I'm not getting into it any further as y'all will just tell me how I am wrong.

Well no, if that’s the gist of what was said, the lesson was well-intentioned but factually wrong. Hate speech against Jews and POC like that of Charlottesville is indeed protected. Inciting violence is not, and the individuals there caught up in that were procecuted (though too few). All the teacher needed to say to be accurate is that there’s a line to cross on hate, and that while Charlottesville was a shameful episode to show the world, the demonstrations we saw were largely protected speech.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Okay, if it was couched in that way, sure that’s erroneous information. But it’s not ‘completely wrong’ depending on level of nuance. If the teacher explained that some cases may incur a different standard, such as hate speech in school that includes obscenity, the school could use the latter for discipline because obscenity is not protected.

I’m just not sure where the obvious ‘political injection’ was - they simply may not be up on SCOTUS decisions or did not explain with enough care.

I sat in on the class after what I heard, no she was not addressing anything related to school. The politics came in when she started to talk about Charlottesville and Trump relating to hate speech and the 1st. I'm not getting into it any further as y'all will just tell me how I am wrong.

Well no, if that’s the gist of what was said, the lesson was well-intentioned but factually wrong. Hate speech against Jews and POC like that of Charlottesville is indeed protected. Inciting violence is not, and the individuals there caught up in that were procecuted (though too few). All the teacher needed to say to be accurate is that there’s a line to cross on hate, and that while Charlottesville was a shameful episode to show the world, the demonstrations we saw were largely protected speech.

Well, it is protected speech from the government point of view. Many people in that march lost their jobs for participating. Your right to free hate speech does not protect you from consequences.

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I sat in on the class after what I heard, no she was not addressing anything related to school. The politics came in when she started to talk about Charlottesville and Trump relating to hate speech and the 1st. I'm not getting into it any further as y'all will just tell me how I am wrong.

Well no, if that’s the gist of what was said, the lesson was well-intentioned but factually wrong. Hate speech against Jews and POC like that of Charlottesville is indeed protected. Inciting violence is not, and the individuals there caught up in that were procecuted (though too few). All the teacher needed to say to be accurate is that there’s a line to cross on hate, and that while Charlottesville was a shameful episode to show the world, the demonstrations we saw were largely protected speech.

Well, it is protected speech from the government point of view. Many people in that march lost their jobs for participating. Your right to free hate speech does not protect you from consequences.

Very true, but external to a 1A discussion I guess.

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Well no, if that’s the gist of what was said, the lesson was well-intentioned but factually wrong. Hate speech against Jews and POC like that of Charlottesville is indeed protected. Inciting violence is not, and the individuals there caught up in that were procecuted (though too few). All the teacher needed to say to be accurate is that there’s a line to cross on hate, and that while Charlottesville was a shameful episode to show the world, the demonstrations we saw were largely protected speech.

Well, it is protected speech from the government point of view. Many people in that march lost their jobs for participating. Your right to free hate speech does not protect you from consequences.

Very true, but external to a 1A discussion I guess.

I don't think so, because it is one of the political misunderstandings of 1A. There are those on the right that think they can say whatever they want with no consequences, and they are only right as far as the Government itself is concerned. Private entities can still deliver consequences.

casinterest wrote:

There are those on the right that think they can say whatever they want with no consequences, and they are only right as far as the Government itself is concerned. Private entities can still deliver consequences.

How soon they forget their opinions about Jane Fonda, The (Dixie) Chicks, Madonna, Marilyn Manson, Janet Jackson, etc etc etc.

luckyone wrote:

How soon they forget their opinions about Jane Fonda, The (Dixie) Chicks, Madonna, Marilyn Manson, Janet Jackson, etc etc etc.

You don’t even need to go back that far. This year notorious conservative firebrand and “free speech warrior” Ben Shapiro led an online harassment campaign to have an AP journalist fired for making pro-Palestinian comments. And also advocating for American schools, businesses and government departments forcing new employees to sign a “loyalty oath” where they require them to never make negative comments about the state of Israel or potentially lose their jobs.

These conservatives have no problems denying free speech to those with alternate views, in fact they basically enforce it.

seb146 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

You’re right to an extent, but you can’t waive it all away as some phantom issue…you had the city council of a major American city pledge to defund their police department and it’s been pushed in various forms by activist groups as ballot measures in many jurisdictions. This was a policy area where activists and certain progressive Democrats clearly overplayed their hand and was not in alignment with the desires of most Democrat voters even. Sure, you can say the Democrat party never “officially” endorsed such a position…but they certainly didn’t go out of their way to refute such policies.

And "defund" has not seen much support other than from right wingers who use it as a scare tactic to gin up their base. Just like how they use critical race theory to scare their base or the myth of illegals living high on the government handouts. All lies, every one. But, the right wing does not care. It gets people agitated.

The "democrat party" never endorsed defund because the "democrat party" does not exist. It is the DEMOCRATIC party and, no, they never endorsed defund. What they DID endorse was finding a way to take pressure off police. Instead of making police a catch-all for everyone, send out mental health experts to do welfare checks, train police that shooting an unarmed suspect in the back is never ever an option... things like that are what the DEMOCRATIC party endorses. But, we can't do that because, for some reason, that is "defund" and Republicans want to continue the myth of "socialist Democrats" endorsing "defund" somehow...

It. Doesn’t. Matter. They clearly let their official position take a back seat despite having a captive audience in most mainstream media. Yes, complain all you’d like about “righties” distorting your official position…but none of that is new. That’s what the opposition always does…seize on a misstep to rally people to their side. Having some of your most prominent party members out in the wild talking unchecked about “defunding” and “deconstructing” police departments is terrible optics and messaging if that isn’t your party’s “official” position.

flyguy89 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

You’re right to an extent, but you can’t waive it all away as some phantom issue…you had the city council of a major American city pledge to defund their police department and it’s been pushed in various forms by activist groups as ballot measures in many jurisdictions. This was a policy area where activists and certain progressive Democrats clearly overplayed their hand and was not in alignment with the desires of most Democrat voters even. Sure, you can say the Democrat party never “officially” endorsed such a position…but they certainly didn’t go out of their way to refute such policies.

And "defund" has not seen much support other than from right wingers who use it as a scare tactic to gin up their base. Just like how they use critical race theory to scare their base or the myth of illegals living high on the government handouts. All lies, every one. But, the right wing does not care. It gets people agitated.

The "democrat party" never endorsed defund because the "democrat party" does not exist. It is the DEMOCRATIC party and, no, they never endorsed defund. What they DID endorse was finding a way to take pressure off police. Instead of making police a catch-all for everyone, send out mental health experts to do welfare checks, train police that shooting an unarmed suspect in the back is never ever an option... things like that are what the DEMOCRATIC party endorses. But, we can't do that because, for some reason, that is "defund" and Republicans want to continue the myth of "socialist Democrats" endorsing "defund" somehow...

It. Doesn’t. Matter. They clearly let their official position take a back seat despite having a captive audience in most mainstream media. Yes, complain all you’d like about “righties” distorting your official position…but none of that is new. That’s what the opposition always does…seize on a misstep to rally people to their side. Having some of your most prominent party members out in the wild talking unchecked about “defunding” and “deconstructing” police departments is terrible optics and messaging if that isn’t your party’s “official” position.

Democrats have not talked about "defund" for a very long time. Republicans keep bringing it up. Just like they stoke the "fear" of critical race theory and marriage equality and illegals getting free government stuff. Yes, Democrats should have seized on these talking points as clearly myth. Instead, they are running on what they are doing and want to do. Fight fire with fire. One side peddles myth, the other side should hit back with truth only louder.

Maybe they should investigate voter fraud in Virginia.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... y/2870695/

1. Not his precinct.

The 17-year-old son of Virginia Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin twice tried to cast a ballot on Election Day even though he is not yet eligible to vote, election officials confirm to News4. He was unsuccessful in his attempt to vote.

2. Tried to vote for Dad.

Handwritten notes in a report by the Hickory precinct chief show that the teen arrived at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday and requested a ballot. He was told he had to be 18 years old to vote and was instead offered a registration form, which he declined, the notes said.

3. Tries a 2nd time. Not sure if this is criminal or not, but not of age is not of age.

The same voter came back to the precinct 30 minutes later, at 10 a.m., and requested a ballot a second time. The teen was told he wasn't eligible to vote and again was offered the opportunity to register, notes show.

"He declined if he would not be able to vote today," the chief wrote.

Good on the officials for turning him away, but why in the world was this kid trying so hard?

casinterest wrote:

Maybe they should investigate voter fraud in Virginia.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... y/2870695/

1. Not his precinct.

The 17-year-old son of Virginia Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin twice tried to cast a ballot on Election Day even though he is not yet eligible to vote, election officials confirm to News4. He was unsuccessful in his attempt to vote.

2. Tried to vote for Dad.

Handwritten notes in a report by the Hickory precinct chief show that the teen arrived at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday and requested a ballot. He was told he had to be 18 years old to vote and was instead offered a registration form, which he declined, the notes said.

3. Tries a 2nd time. Not sure if this is criminal or not, but not of age is not of age.

The same voter came back to the precinct 30 minutes later, at 10 a.m., and requested a ballot a second time. The teen was told he wasn't eligible to vote and again was offered the opportunity to register, notes show.

"He declined if he would not be able to vote today," the chief wrote.

Good on the officials for turning him away, but why in the world was this kid trying so hard?

Tried to vote Democrat because he was rebelling against his father like every wayward 17-year old.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Maybe they should investigate voter fraud in Virginia.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... y/2870695/

1. Not his precinct.

The 17-year-old son of Virginia Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin twice tried to cast a ballot on Election Day even though he is not yet eligible to vote, election officials confirm to News4. He was unsuccessful in his attempt to vote.

2. Tried to vote for Dad.

Handwritten notes in a report by the Hickory precinct chief show that the teen arrived at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday and requested a ballot. He was told he had to be 18 years old to vote and was instead offered a registration form, which he declined, the notes said.

3. Tries a 2nd time. Not sure if this is criminal or not, but not of age is not of age.

The same voter came back to the precinct 30 minutes later, at 10 a.m., and requested a ballot a second time. The teen was told he wasn't eligible to vote and again was offered the opportunity to register, notes show.

"He declined if he would not be able to vote today," the chief wrote.

Good on the officials for turning him away, but why in the world was this kid trying so hard?

Tried to vote Democrat because he was rebelling against his father like every wayward 17-year old.

That's very possible - also calls into question why his parents aren't able to keep him home on such a momentous day. He's a minor and ostensibly needs their permission to be out and about. I presume they have house help, security, etc. given their HNW status.

Tugger wrote:

I am not a fan of "ID at the polls" as it had not proven to be an issue (what about ID for mail in ones?) but can support with strong community engagement to get ID's issued to all that need one. That means active out reach to all communities so that people that have a harder time getting one can and will get one. No passing "ID required for next months election" crap with no support.

Tugg

In Texas, it's required to send in a copy of both sides of a qualifying photo ID in order to apply for an absentee ballot (by mail) just like presenting a photo ID in person at a polling location to vote in person. The regional transit agency gives free rides to the DPS office to get ID's. There are 4 kinds of state issued ID's that can be used for voting in addition to federal ID's. There are Texas driver's licenses, Texas ID cards, free voting only ID's, and firearms carry licenses. As an election judge, I have never seen a voting only ID. They can't be used for boarding aircraft, entering secure government buildings, buying liquor, entering nightclubs, renting apartments, going to a doctor's office, etc. Driver's licenses and ID cards are mutually exclusive. If you have a driver's license, you can't get the ID card. If one has a firearms carry license, it must be presented alongside a driver's license anytime one is stopped for a traffic violation. While a Texas firearms carry license can be used for voter ID, it is illegal for anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry a firearm in a polling location.

Ken777 wrote:

You may be right in believing that lot of folks are spooked, but I believe that is more due to the 2 Democrats in the Senate that have been playing games. Manchin ( the Dem's DINO) is a major cause, with Senator Senna being simply a glory seeking PITA. The resulting problem is that media is paying more attention to the problems they are causing than fully explaining the details of the Biden Programs. Pity. As far as McAuliffe goes, the race was closer than the GOP would like and has been influenced by the states history of selecting the opposition candidate in the first mid-term.

Looking to the 2022 and 2024 Elections, the Democrats re looking more to the 400+ racist laws the GOP is pushing at the state levels and those laws, if passed will shift in a totalitarian government for years to come and even you will be looking back on the democratic governments (including those run by the Democrats) with fond memories. Voter suppression is clearly a goal and you might as well be prepared fo the worse, or start voting Democratic!

Senators represent their states first. Democrats have a 50-48-2 partisan breakdown in the Senate. The two independents mostly vote with the Democrats. Since the Vice President is a Democrat, if all senators vote along strictly party lines, the Democrats have the tie breaker. The paper thin plurality that the Democrats have in the Senate is not conducive to passing legislation that only one faction of one party supports. Manchin isn't going anywhere til at least 2024 which is the next time he is up for re-election. He'll likely win re-election then too. When he retires, it's likely his replacement will be a Republican.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

In Texas, it's required to send in a copy of both sides of a qualifying photo ID in order to apply for an absentee ballot (by mail) just like presenting a photo ID in person at a polling location to vote in person. The regional transit agency gives free rides to the DPS office to get ID's. There are 4 kinds of state issued ID's that can be used for voting in addition to federal ID's. There are Texas driver's licenses, Texas ID cards, free voting only ID's, and firearms carry licenses. As an election judge, I have never seen a voting only ID. They can't be used for boarding aircraft, entering secure government buildings, buying liquor, entering nightclubs, renting apartments, going to a doctor's office, etc. Driver's licenses and ID cards are mutually exclusive. If you have a driver's license, you can't get the ID card. If one has a firearms carry license, it must be presented alongside a driver's license anytime one is stopped for a traffic violation. While a Texas firearms carry license can be used for voter ID, it is illegal for anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry a firearm in a polling location.

Not bad. Still they do need to do something that gets out into the neighborhoods to allow people to "walk up", go just a few hundred feet to get an ID and also keep the expanded hours they had recently, 7a to 7p, this will greatly assist people.

It is a good thing to get as many people involved as possible. And this ensure it is done fairly for Texas citizens who wish to participate.

Tugg

Two things I noticed Republicans were shouting and screaming about that Democrats didn't address at all: voter laws and critical race theory. Facts are facts and facts have a liberal bias. Meaning: ID is required to vote and CRT is not taught nor will ever be taught outside law school. Democrats need to scream this from the rooftops and, at the same time, shout about how this is all Republicans have. Republicans have no ideas to offer We The People. This can not be stressed enough.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Maybe they should investigate voter fraud in Virginia.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... y/2870695/

1. Not his precinct.


2. Tried to vote for Dad.


3. Tries a 2nd time. Not sure if this is criminal or not, but not of age is not of age.



Good on the officials for turning him away, but why in the world was this kid trying so hard?

Tried to vote Democrat because he was rebelling against his father like every wayward 17-year old.

That's very possible - also calls into question why his parents aren't able to keep him home on such a momentous day. He's a minor and ostensibly needs their permission to be out and about. I presume they have house help, security, etc. given their HNW status.

He is a 17 year old in VA. Probably has his own car, and tried to vote. Not sure what the motives were, but shows a lack of moral clarity at that age.

Tugger wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

In Texas, it's required to send in a copy of both sides of a qualifying photo ID in order to apply for an absentee ballot (by mail) just like presenting a photo ID in person at a polling location to vote in person. The regional transit agency gives free rides to the DPS office to get ID's. There are 4 kinds of state issued ID's that can be used for voting in addition to federal ID's. There are Texas driver's licenses, Texas ID cards, free voting only ID's, and firearms carry licenses. As an election judge, I have never seen a voting only ID. They can't be used for boarding aircraft, entering secure government buildings, buying liquor, entering nightclubs, renting apartments, going to a doctor's office, etc. Driver's licenses and ID cards are mutually exclusive. If you have a driver's license, you can't get the ID card. If one has a firearms carry license, it must be presented alongside a driver's license anytime one is stopped for a traffic violation. While a Texas firearms carry license can be used for voter ID, it is illegal for anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry a firearm in a polling location.

Not bad. Still they do need to do something that gets out into the neighborhoods to allow people to "walk up", go just a few hundred feet to get an ID and also keep the expanded hours they had recently, 7a to 7p, this will greatly assist people.

It is a good thing to get as many people involved as possible. And this ensure it is done fairly for Texas citizens who wish to participate.

Tugg

A Texas Driver's license requires the same documentation as a US passport in order to qualify as a Real ID compliant ID. That kind of security is not enforcable in mobile sites. There are lots of reason to have government issued ID cards besides voting. Doctors' offices require them. So do liquor stores, government buildings, some office buildings, airline check in desks, TSA checkpoints, welfare offices, banks, real estate agencies, car dealerships, apartment offices just to look at an apartment. Seriously as an election judge or alternate, the only person, who could not provide an ID that was less the 4 years expired, was guy who admitted that the reason he didn't have a current driver's license was that he was several years behind on child support payments and would be arrested if he showed up at a DPS office.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

In Texas, it's required to send in a copy of both sides of a qualifying photo ID in order to apply for an absentee ballot (by mail) just like presenting a photo ID in person at a polling location to vote in person. The regional transit agency gives free rides to the DPS office to get ID's. There are 4 kinds of state issued ID's that can be used for voting in addition to federal ID's. There are Texas driver's licenses, Texas ID cards, free voting only ID's, and firearms carry licenses. As an election judge, I have never seen a voting only ID. They can't be used for boarding aircraft, entering secure government buildings, buying liquor, entering nightclubs, renting apartments, going to a doctor's office, etc. Driver's licenses and ID cards are mutually exclusive. If you have a driver's license, you can't get the ID card. If one has a firearms carry license, it must be presented alongside a driver's license anytime one is stopped for a traffic violation. While a Texas firearms carry license can be used for voter ID, it is illegal for anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry a firearm in a polling location.

Not bad. Still they do need to do something that gets out into the neighborhoods to allow people to "walk up", go just a few hundred feet to get an ID and also keep the expanded hours they had recently, 7a to 7p, this will greatly assist people.

It is a good thing to get as many people involved as possible. And this ensure it is done fairly for Texas citizens who wish to participate.

Tugg

A Texas Driver's license requires the same documentation as a US passport in order to qualify as a Real ID compliant ID. That kind of security is not enforcable in mobile sites. There are lots of reason to have government issued ID cards besides voting. Doctors' offices require them. So do liquor stores, government buildings, some office buildings, airline check in desks, TSA checkpoints, welfare offices, banks, real estate agencies, car dealerships, apartment offices just to look at an apartment. Seriously as an election judge or alternate, the only person, who could not provide an ID that was less the 4 years expired, was guy who admitted that the reason he didn't have a current driver's license was that he was several years behind on child support payments and would be arrested if he showed up at a DPS office.

What is required to receive the free voting only ID cards?

flyguy89 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Not bad. Still they do need to do something that gets out into the neighborhoods to allow people to "walk up", go just a few hundred feet to get an ID and also keep the expanded hours they had recently, 7a to 7p, this will greatly assist people.

It is a good thing to get as many people involved as possible. And this ensure it is done fairly for Texas citizens who wish to participate.

Tugg

A Texas Driver's license requires the same documentation as a US passport in order to qualify as a Real ID compliant ID. That kind of security is not enforcable in mobile sites. There are lots of reason to have government issued ID cards besides voting. Doctors' offices require them. So do liquor stores, government buildings, some office buildings, airline check in desks, TSA checkpoints, welfare offices, banks, real estate agencies, car dealerships, apartment offices just to look at an apartment. Seriously as an election judge or alternate, the only person, who could not provide an ID that was less the 4 years expired, was guy who admitted that the reason he didn't have a current driver's license was that he was several years behind on child support payments and would be arrested if he showed up at a DPS office.

What is required to receive the free voting only ID cards?

Documentation of proof of United States citizenship including birth certificate, residence in Texas, submitting two thumb prints, and the residence address has to be a valid address. The card will be mailed to the address to verify the address.

The firearm carry license requires a full background check and submission of all 10 fingerprints.

Interesting how the Republican in Virginia stayed far, far, F-A-R!!!! away from MAGA and their dear leader and squeeked out a win. Just an observation...

seb146 wrote:

Interesting how the Republican in Virginia stayed far, far, F-A-R!!!! away from MAGA and their dear leader and squeeked out a win. Just an observation...

Only the fringe right consider moron 45 as their 'dear leader.' The only reason he won in 2016 was the dems couldn't help themselves -- as usual they had to prioritize celebrity over substance.

Elkadad313 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Interesting how the Republican in Virginia stayed far, far, F-A-R!!!! away from MAGA and their dear leader and squeeked out a win. Just an observation...

Only the fringe right consider moron 45 as their 'dear leader.' The only reason he won in 2016 was the dems couldn't help themselves -- as usual they had to prioritize celebrity over substance.

It's a pretty large fringe - at least 30-35% of the conservative vote according to some analysts, and Trump claimed to Fox recently that the party 'overwhelmingly' wants him back. That said, he also ridiculously claimed to have a 152-2 record on candidate endorsements

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Tried to vote Democrat because he was rebelling against his father like every wayward 17-year old.

That's very possible - also calls into question why his parents aren't able to keep him home on such a momentous day. He's a minor and ostensibly needs their permission to be out and about. I presume they have house help, security, etc. given their HNW status.

He is a 17 year old in VA. Probably has his own car, and tried to vote. Not sure what the motives were, but shows a lack of moral clarity at that age.

Yeah but this is a HNW household. I was around them growing up. If the parents are competent, they tell the house manager 'junior goes nowhere tomorrow', all the help are on notice and will block any attempts by the kid to leave. We had rich friends at school who couldn't come out because of this when they were on restriction.

Not the rich kids I’ve seen on bizjets, utterly entitled, thought they owned the operation. The worst except for one group going to school in Switzerland from India.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Not the rich kids I’ve seen on bizjets, utterly entitled, thought they owned the operation. The worst except for one group going to school in Switzerland from India.

Yep - that's the other kind. Incompetent parents. Our compatriots like them in HS got new BMWs for sweet sixteen. Looking them up on LinkedIn now is hilarious.

Elkadad313 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Interesting how the Republican in Virginia stayed far, far, F-A-R!!!! away from MAGA and their dear leader and squeeked out a win. Just an observation...

Only the fringe right consider moron 45 as their 'dear leader.' The only reason he won in 2016 was the dems couldn't help themselves -- as usual they had to prioritize celebrity over substance.

Go take a drive through rural America, anywhere, even rural California, and you will see the support he has. Too many with "MAGA 2024" flags and "he won" stickers and flags and "FJB" stickers. The level of insanity is real. It is even in some suburbs.

I also find it interesting that Youngkin still made crazy statements about critical race theory and illegals, just like the Republican party leader, people still voted for him. Part of that is McAuliffe not calling out those lies as loud as possible.

The election was stolen

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... a-n1283376

Youngkin's underage son tried to vote twice.

The Democrats went after the children, whether it was Critical Race Theory or the ridiculous vaccine mandates. The parents came out (especially the mamma bears) and voted, and the rest is history.

seb146 wrote:

Interesting how the Republican in Virginia stayed far, far, F-A-R!!!! away from MAGA and their dear leader and squeeked out a win. Just an observation...

Squeeked? Hardly, The GOP got 50% of the vote and if it wasn't for the one Blue county where all the DC people are from the state soundly said No to the anti police high crime and other crazy stuff coming from the Dems. Keep dragging Trump into things he had nothing to do with, Your problem isn't Trump. It's Nancy, Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, AOC and all the other nut cases.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Interesting how the Republican in Virginia stayed far, far, F-A-R!!!! away from MAGA and their dear leader and squeeked out a win. Just an observation...

Squeeked? Hardly, The GOP got 50% of the vote and if it wasn't for the one Blue county where all the DC people are from the state soundly said No to the anti police high crime and other crazy stuff coming from the Dems. Keep dragging Trump into things he had nothing to do with, Your problem isn't Trump. It's Nancy, Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, AOC and all the other nut cases.

I just doesn’t understand this love for hyperbole. There were roughly 30 blue counties in VA, not one in NoVa.

https://www.politico.com/election-resul ... /virginia/

In exit interviews the tipping voter bloc, suburban women, have said the primary issue for them was who was better on education. Nobody cared about Pelosi or AOC. Your take is way off, but that’s understandable being out in the silver state.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Interesting how the Republican in Virginia stayed far, far, F-A-R!!!! away from MAGA and their dear leader and squeeked out a win. Just an observation...

Squeeked? Hardly, The GOP got 50% of the vote and if it wasn't for the one Blue county where all the DC people are from the state soundly said No to the anti police high crime and other crazy stuff coming from the Dems. Keep dragging Trump into things he had nothing to do with, Your problem isn't Trump. It's Nancy, Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, AOC and all the other nut cases.

I stand by "squeeked". A couple of hundred votes could have turned it either way. And, who knows? Maybe there were some voting twice, which Younkin's son tried. And Democrats are not whining and not violently trying to overthrow the Virginia legislature over it. I wonder why....?

There are Republicans in SEA and PDX and SFO. No one but no one denies that. What we need to understand that, in urban areas like those, people tend to vote for more progressive candidates. Unlike rural areas. I live in a rural area of Oregon and people complain about PDX deciding for the state. What they don't understand is that we are everywhere. Progressives live AND VOTE in every district. And
help Democratic and progressive candidates get elected. Why was DeFazio reelected? Because of progressives and independents and middle of the road Democrats. Why was Younkin elected? He LOOKED LIKE he was rejecting the MAGA trope by not appearing with their dear leader, even though he was appealing to their sensibilities. If he had embraced the orange one, he would have lost in an epic land slide. Younkin knew what he was doing. Being his god without being his god.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Interesting how the Republican in Virginia stayed far, far, F-A-R!!!! away from MAGA and their dear leader and squeeked out a win. Just an observation...

Squeeked? Hardly, The GOP got 50% of the vote and if it wasn't for the one Blue county where all the DC people are from the state soundly said No to the anti police high crime and other crazy stuff coming from the Dems. Keep dragging Trump into things he had nothing to do with, Your problem isn't Trump. It's Nancy, Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, AOC and all the other nut cases.

I stand by "squeeked". A couple of hundred votes could have turned it either way. And, who knows? Maybe there were some voting twice, which Younkin's son tried. And Democrats are not whining and not violently trying to overthrow the Virginia legislature over it. I wonder why....?

There are Republicans in SEA and PDX and SFO. No one but no one denies that. What we need to understand that, in urban areas like those, people tend to vote for more progressive candidates. Unlike rural areas. I live in a rural area of Oregon and people complain about PDX deciding for the state. What they don't understand is that we are everywhere. Progressives live AND VOTE in every district. And
help Democratic and progressive candidates get elected. Why was DeFazio reelected? Because of progressives and independents and middle of the road Democrats. Why was Younkin elected? He LOOKED LIKE he was rejecting the MAGA trope by not appearing with their dear leader, even though he was appealing to their sensibilities. If he had embraced the orange one, he would have lost in an epic land slide. Younkin knew what he was doing. Being his god without being his god.

Overanalyzing I think - it was McAuliffe’s race to lose, and he lost it. His campaign managers and comms people should never get hired in a Dem race again.

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Squeeked? Hardly, The GOP got 50% of the vote and if it wasn't for the one Blue county where all the DC people are from the state soundly said No to the anti police high crime and other crazy stuff coming from the Dems. Keep dragging Trump into things he had nothing to do with, Your problem isn't Trump. It's Nancy, Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, AOC and all the other nut cases.

I stand by "squeeked". A couple of hundred votes could have turned it either way. And, who knows? Maybe there were some voting twice, which Younkin's son tried. And Democrats are not whining and not violently trying to overthrow the Virginia legislature over it. I wonder why....?

There are Republicans in SEA and PDX and SFO. No one but no one denies that. What we need to understand that, in urban areas like those, people tend to vote for more progressive candidates. Unlike rural areas. I live in a rural area of Oregon and people complain about PDX deciding for the state. What they don't understand is that we are everywhere. Progressives live AND VOTE in every district. And
help Democratic and progressive candidates get elected. Why was DeFazio reelected? Because of progressives and independents and middle of the road Democrats. Why was Younkin elected? He LOOKED LIKE he was rejecting the MAGA trope by not appearing with their dear leader, even though he was appealing to their sensibilities. If he had embraced the orange one, he would have lost in an epic land slide. Younkin knew what he was doing. Being his god without being his god.

Overanalyzing I think - it was McAuliffe’s race to lose, and he lost it. His campaign managers and comms people should never get hired in a Dem race again.

Why?
They were fighting a race against people that wanted to use lies and racism in a state where enough people are racist enough or uneducated enough to go for it. Not an easy sell. There was also the motivational problem of younger voters. They came out and said that the 19-35 demographic skipped this election.

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I stand by "squeeked". A couple of hundred votes could have turned it either way. And, who knows? Maybe there were some voting twice, which Younkin's son tried. And Democrats are not whining and not violently trying to overthrow the Virginia legislature over it. I wonder why....?

There are Republicans in SEA and PDX and SFO. No one but no one denies that. What we need to understand that, in urban areas like those, people tend to vote for more progressive candidates. Unlike rural areas. I live in a rural area of Oregon and people complain about PDX deciding for the state. What they don't understand is that we are everywhere. Progressives live AND VOTE in every district. And
help Democratic and progressive candidates get elected. Why was DeFazio reelected? Because of progressives and independents and middle of the road Democrats. Why was Younkin elected? He LOOKED LIKE he was rejecting the MAGA trope by not appearing with their dear leader, even though he was appealing to their sensibilities. If he had embraced the orange one, he would have lost in an epic land slide. Younkin knew what he was doing. Being his god without being his god.

Overanalyzing I think - it was McAuliffe’s race to lose, and he lost it. His campaign managers and comms people should never get hired in a Dem race again.

Why?
They were fighting a race against people that wanted to use lies and racism in a state where enough people are racist enough or uneducated enough to go for it. Not an easy sell. There was also the motivational problem of younger voters. They came out and said that the 19-35 demographic skipped this election.

The schools messaging was sloppy. They didn't respond to the lies forcibly enough. Suburban women were the key and the campaign team was supposed to know that. They failed.

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Overanalyzing I think - it was McAuliffe’s race to lose, and he lost it. His campaign managers and comms people should never get hired in a Dem race again.

Why?
They were fighting a race against people that wanted to use lies and racism in a state where enough people are racist enough or uneducated enough to go for it. Not an easy sell. There was also the motivational problem of younger voters. They came out and said that the 19-35 demographic skipped this election.

The schools messaging was sloppy. They didn't respond to the lies forcibly enough. Suburban women were the key and the campaign team was supposed to know that. They failed.

The issue as posted in another thread, is that these folks are watching their echo verse propaganda outlets, and are unfortunately a hard audience to reach. The DNC needs to figure a way around this echoverse, but for now, it is a very powerful misinformation machine with a lot of money behind it.