Yep, I'm starting another generational thread

[MUBurrow]

There are many reasons people don't vote.  Many people consider their vote an endorsement of a candidate and take issue - moral or otherwise - with helping to elect a representative that isn't representative of who they are or what they stand for.  Other people have no problem with electing a sociopath* as long as it puts a few more dollars in their own pockets.  The latter is where the danger exists... most people vote because they feel a duty or obligation to vote.  So why is it "bending over backwards" to have someone else cast their vote who otherwise would not? Sure, it's a little more work for the machines that count the ballots, and I guess someone has to spend 45 minutes watching a printing press than the usual 20 minutes.  Maybe the poll workers have to stay a little later, or more volunteers will be needed to run the polling sites.  But your implication that compulsory voting would be this great burden levied upon the people is simply untrue.

You also raised the bolded point in your last post about "suppressing" the votes of people who don't vote because they don't trust politicians.  People who don't vote for broader ideological reasons are different than people who don't vote for practical reasons.  The person who doesn't vote because all politicians are untrustworthy? Or takes issue with electing someone who they don't feel sufficiently represents them? I'd prefer that those folks not vote and I don't think the system gets better if we force them to. Their not voting isn't "suppression" and they aren't just having someone cast their ballot that "otherwise would not" - those are conscientious objectors to the whole process. Given that we have actual voter suppression going on, and concentrated efforts to make voting inaccessible to large groups of people, I think using hyperbole around people who don't want to participate anyway unduly overshadows the practical things we should be doing to make the election process we have easier to navigate and more accessible.

[MU82]

You also raised the bolded point in your last post about "suppressing" the votes of people who don't vote because they don't trust politicians.  People who don't vote for broader ideological reasons are different than people who don't vote for practical reasons.  The person who doesn't vote because all politicians are untrustworthy? Or takes issue with electing someone who they don't feel sufficiently represents them? I'd prefer that those folks not vote and I don't think the system gets better if we force them to. Their not voting isn't "suppression" and they aren't just having someone cast their ballot that "otherwise would not" - those are conscientious objectors to the whole process. Given that we have actual voter suppression going on, and concentrated efforts to make voting inaccessible to large groups of people, I think using hyperbole around people who don't want to participate anyway unduly overshadows the practical things we should be doing to make the election process we have easier to navigate and more accessible.

This.

[jesmu84]

While we're discussing voting...

Why are overseas military and citizens who live abroad permitted to vote by email/online, but we can't have that option for in-country citizens?

[barfolomew]

While we're discussing voting...

Why are overseas military and citizens who live abroad permitted to vote by email/online, but we can't have that option for in-country citizens?

It's because remote electronic voting is still eminently hackable, but is typically not worth the trouble for the small percentage of the total vote you could affect.

Roll that out to the general populace, though...

[TSmith34, Inc.]

FIFY.

And yet... all y'all feel like their votes should be suppressed.  Why is that?  Because someone who doesn't trust politicians is deemed less intelligent?

Seems like someone who doesn't trust politicians would be someone of above-average intelligence.

Sorry, kinda confused what you are trying to say here.  I feel like their votes should be suppressed?  Please explain where I have ever made or implied that.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that has stated that I agree with compulsory voting.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

While we're discussing voting...

Why are overseas military and citizens who live abroad permitted to vote by email/online, but we can't have that option for in-country citizens?

They have to vote by absentee ballot, don't they?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

It's because remote electronic voting is still eminently hackable, but is typically not worth the trouble for the small percentage of the total vote you could affect.

Roll that out to the general populace, though...

Voting machines are eminently hackable.

"Kids at hacking conference show how easily US elections could be sabotaged"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/22/us-elections-hacking-voting-machines-def-con

[mu03eng]

Voting machines are eminently hackable.

"Kids at hacking conference show how easily US elections could be sabotaged"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/22/us-elections-hacking-voting-machines-def-con

There is hackable and then hackable in a way that no one would notice.

[MU82]

It's one of the great scams going.

In-person voting fraud is almost non-existent, but it's relatively easy to make illegal votes remotely and/or by absentee ballot.

[4everwarriors]

Musta spent lottsa tyme in da Banana Republic, hey?

[WarriorDad]

Voting machines are eminently hackable.

"Kids at hacking conference show how easily US elections could be sabotaged"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/22/us-elections-hacking-voting-machines-def-con

Not really as they also showed the circumstances in which those kids did that do not exist in the real world.  Opening up the back of the machine, for example.  That would be flagged immediately.  Several articles that talk about yes it is possible, but with tools, a lot of work and remember that no machines are connected to each other.  Overblown.

“In the real world of elections, it’s ludicrous,” said Clifford Rodgers, administrator of elections in Knox County, Tenn. “We’ve got people watching people come in to vote.They’re not coming in with screwdrivers to open it up. They’re not coming in with computers.”

https://gcn.com/articles/2017/11/15/voting-machine-hack.aspx

[WarriorDad]

You lack historical context.  This isn't really all that new.

Historical context didn't have social media, that's the game changer.

[WarriorDad]

What leaders in "your party" have encouraged violence from their supporters? I could see an argument for that they aren't doing enough to condemn violence but I personally can't think of an example where any have encouraged violence.

The latter is the big part, step up and tell people to knock it off. The GOP has to tell Cheeto it is unacceptable his comments of support of slamming reporters.  Examples. Eric Holder should not be saying "When they go low, we kick them" (said last week).  The mayor out west in Portland with Antifa, that is unacceptable.  Using charged words like "collateral damage" by Nancy Pelosi this week, even though it was related to economic policies it is charged in this environment.   Hillary Clinton saying civility cannot occur unless we win the House and/or Senate.  Civility cannot start unless we win was her comment.  That is not the proper way to talk in and it is loaded and charged for the crazies.  Those are examples with my party.  There are numerous with the GOP, including their leader.

I have said before, I use the standard of putting the other party into the story to see how the reaction would be.  If Cheeto or Graham said Collateral Damage, or take it to the streets, or we won't be civil unless we win one of the chambers, how would we react? How would the media react?  The same needs to be applied to both sides.

Michele Obama had it right, stay above the frey.

[Babybluejeans]

The latter is the big part, step up and tell people to knock it off. The GOP has to tell Cheeto it is unacceptable his comments of support of slamming reporters.  Examples. Eric Holder should not be saying "When they go low, we kick them" (said last week).  The mayor out west in Portland with Antifa, that is unacceptable.  Using charged words like "collateral damage" by Nancy Pelosi this week, even though it was related to economic policies it is charged in this environment.   Hillary Clinton saying civility cannot occur unless we win the House and/or Senate.  Civility cannot start unless we win was her comment.  That is not the proper way to talk in and it is loaded and charged for the crazies.  Those are examples with my party.  There are numerous with the GOP, including their leader.

I have said before, I use the standard of putting the other party into the story to see how the reaction would be.  If Cheeto or Graham said Collateral Damage, or take it to the streets, or we won't be civil unless we win one of the chambers, how would we react? How would the media react?  The same needs to be applied to both sides.

Michele Obama had it right, stay above the frey.

Totally. As a conservative, I’m really disappointed in my party. We’ve gone absolutely insane, nothing like the 70’s when Richard Nixon represented us reasonable conservatives (well, until he had to resign in disgrace. Lol.). Now, I’ve noticed how my party is full of more snowflakes than an Oberlon cafeteria. And I realized, it’s both sides. All sides are snowflakes. Especially my Republican party.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The latter is the big part, step up and tell people to knock it off. The GOP has to tell Cheeto it is unacceptable his comments of support of slamming reporters.  Examples. Eric Holder should not be saying "When they go low, we kick them" (said last week).  The mayor out west in Portland with Antifa, that is unacceptable.  Using charged words like "collateral damage" by Nancy Pelosi this week, even though it was related to economic policies it is charged in this environment.   Hillary Clinton saying civility cannot occur unless we win the House and/or Senate.  Civility cannot start unless we win was her comment.  That is not the proper way to talk in and it is loaded and charged for the crazies.  Those are examples with my party.  There are numerous with the GOP, including their leader.

I have said before, I use the standard of putting the other party into the story to see how the reaction would be.  If Cheeto or Graham said Collateral Damage, or take it to the streets, or we won't be civil unless we win one of the chambers, how would we react? How would the media react?  The same needs to be applied to both sides.

Michele Obama had it right, stay above the frey.

I'll give you the Holder comment, though he is a former leader of the party, not a current one. I'm not familiar with the Portland mayor. The Pelosi and Clinton comments I would not bat an eye at if they were said by Republicans.

This is all false equivalency. There have been actual threats of violence and incarceration on one side. To try to hold these examples up as just as bad is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.

[WarriorDad]

I'll give you the Holder comment, though he is a former leader of the party, not a current one. I'm not familiar with the Portland mayor. The Pelosi and Clinton comments I would not bat an eye at if they were said by Republicans.

This is all false equivalency. There have been actual threats of violence and incarceration on one side. To try to hold these examples up as just as bad is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.

Holder is considering running for President.  He is not a former leader.  https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/28/politics/eric-holder-interested-in-being-president/index.html

Would the media bat an eye?  Yes they would.  I find it unbecoming, for the same reason I find cheetos' comments unbecoming.

It sparks the crazies.  Two Republican lawmakers were assaulted in the last week in Minnesota, one in California earlier this year with a switchblade.  The softball shooting incident, Rand Paul attacked at his home.  Susan Collins has Ricin sent to her home and office in the last week.  Man arrested in NY this last week for threatening death to several senators and the new Supreme Court Justice.  Someone is going to get killed with the crazy people on both sides.

I'm sorry, but we can do better and I expect better.  I care about what we are doing, take the higher ground. 

[Babybluejeans]

People from my Republican Party killed a girl at a neo-nazi rally. Both sides. We can do better. All MU fans.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

People from my Republican Party killed a girl at a neo-nazi rally. Both sides. We can do better. All MU fans.

False equivalency.  Only one side attracts Nazis and the Klan.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Not really as they also showed the circumstances in which those kids did that do not exist in the real world.  Opening up the back of the machine, for example.  That would be flagged immediately.  Several articles that talk about yes it is possible, but with tools, a lot of work and remember that no machines are connected to each other.  Overblown.

“In the real world of elections, it’s ludicrous,” said Clifford Rodgers, administrator of elections in Knox County, Tenn. “We’ve got people watching people come in to vote.They’re not coming in with screwdrivers to open it up. They’re not coming in with computers.”

https://gcn.com/articles/2017/11/15/voting-machine-hack.aspx

You're right, Chicos, our election systems are perfectly safe.

https://hackernoon.com/hacking-the-vote-security-vulnerabilities-and-the-future-of-voting-74ce7479a163

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/researchers-hack-voting-machine-for-26

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rigged-presidential-elections-hackers-demonstrate-voting-threat-old-machines/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/07/29/def-con-hacking-election-voting-machines/#20a37c861d55

Only one party seems to be strongly in favor of keeping these machines in place.  Gosh, I wonder what that could be all about?

[Babybluejeans]

False equivalency.  Only one side attracts Nazis and the Klan.

My Republican Party is not the party I grew up with, when we believed that everyone can and should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is true my Republican party has now become full of neo-nazis. Shameful. We can do better.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

My Republican Party is not the party I grew up with, when we believed that everyone can and should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is true my Republican party has now become full of neo-nazis. Shameful. We can do better.

True.  Nixon's policies would have had him screamed out of the current GOP as a "radical lefty".

[ZiggysFryBoy]

True.  Nixon's policies would have had him screamed out of the current GOP as a "radical lefty".

And Bobby Kennedy would be a solid Republican today.  Things change.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

And Bobby Kennedy would be a solid Republican today.  Things change.

He would be?  Which of these positions do you think are aligned with current Republican policy?

Positions[edit]

Kennedy's political platform emphasized racial equality, economic justice, non-aggression in foreign policy, decentralization of power and social improvement. A crucial element of his campaign was youth engagement. Kennedy identified America's youth with the future of a reinvigorated American society based on partnership and social equality.[20]

Kennedy's policy objectives were not popular with the business world, where he was viewed as a fiscal liability. Businesses were opposed to the tax increases that would be necessary to fund Kennedy's proposed social programs. During a speech given at the Indiana University Medical School, Kennedy was asked, "Where are we going to get the money to pay for all these new programs you're proposing?" Kennedy replied to the medical students, who were poised to enter lucrative careers, "From you."[21][22]

Civil rights[edit]

During a 1961 speech at the University of Georgia Law School, Kennedy expressed the administration's commitment to civil rights and school desegregation: "We will not stand by or be aloof—we will move. I happen to believe that the 1954 [Supreme Court school desegregation] decision was right. But my belief does not matter. It is now the law. Some of you may believe the decision was wrong. That does not matter. It is the law."[23]

In February 1962, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had called Martin Luther King Jr. an "enemy of the state",[24] presented RFK with allegations that some of King's close confidants and advisers were communists.[25] He viewed King as a troublemaker.[26] Kennedy gave written approval for limited wiretapping of King's phones on a short term "trial basis" in October 1963,[27] but Hoover extended the clearance so his men would be "unshackled" in their search for evidence against King.[28] Although the wire tapping continued through 1966, no evidence of Communist activity or influence was uncovered as to King.[citation needed]

Kennedy maintained a strong commitment to civil rights enforcement. In 1962, he commented about the large role the civil rights movement played in his public and private life—from prosecuting corrupt southern electoral officials to answering late night calls from Mrs. King when her husband, Dr. King, was imprisoned during demonstrations in Alabama.[29] During his tenure as Attorney General, Kennedy pursued a relentless policy of desegregation for his administration, which was unpredcedented on Capitol Hill. He demanded that every area of government begin recruiting realistic levels of black and other ethnic workers.[citation needed]

Law and order[edit]

In 1968, Kennedy expressed his strong willingness to support a bill that was under consideration[by whom?] for the abolition of the death penalty.[30][better source needed] He argued that rising crime rates could be countered with more job and educational opportunities.[31]

Gun control[edit]

Kennedy supported laws that would reduce casual firearm purchases.[32] He said he believed in keeping firearms away from "people who have no business" with them—specifying criminals, individuals with mental health issues, and minors as classes of persons who should be prevented from purchasing firearms.[33][34]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_presidential_campaign,_1968

[rocket surgeon]

And Bobby Kennedy would be a solid Republican today.  Things change.

i woulda thunk his bro johnny more so

[Jockey]

My Republican Party is not the party I grew up with, when we believed that everyone can and should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is true my Republican party has now become full of neo-nazis. Shameful. We can do better.

Maybe you can do better - the Party is going to get worse.