If my kids were high school age, here's where they'd be going

[MU82]

Another shooting. Still lots to learn about what happened.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article220780475.html?#emlnl=Breaking_Newsletter&id=bWlrZW5hZGVsQHNiY2dsb2JhbC5uZXQ=

Also, my wife, a pediatric nurse, just told me this:

There is a 4 year old in PICU that was shot in the hip / upper leg by an AK47 that accidentally went off while the gun was lying on the couch!!

We absolutely need more guns. The only way to stop an AK47 lying on a couch is with an AK47 for a toddler.

[jesmu84]

Ts and Ps.

[Babybluejeans]

The gun policies of my Republican party are unrecognizable from a couple decades ago. Shameful. People are being killed far too often and with such carnage that reasonable minds should bring some order to the chaos. Unfortunately, politicians use guns as a wedge issue so people react emotionally and unthinkingly to take "their" side, and nothing gets done.

[Benny B]

Is it any surprise by this point that every time there's a massive call for gun control, the sales of firearms spike.  That's more guns, that people don't need, in circulation, solely because people are calling for guns to be taken away.

In a country where too many people are scared of compulsory voting, it is statistically impossible that a bi-partisan government is going to be courageous enough to solve this issue.

In other words:
If your goal is fewer guns, stop calling for gun control.
If your goal is gun control, stop calling for fewer guns.
If you want common sense to rule the day, make voting compulsory.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Is it any surprise by this point that every time there's a massive call for gun control, the sales of firearms spike.  That's more guns, that people don't need, in circulation, solely because people are calling for guns to be taken away.

In a country where too many people are scared of compulsory voting, it is statistically impossible that a bi-partisan government is going to be courageous enough to solve this issue.

In other words:
If your goal is fewer guns, stop calling for gun control.
If your goal is gun control, stop calling for fewer guns.
If you want common sense to rule the day, make voting compulsory.

I'm fine with compulsory voting,  but I don't think it changes anything.  A lot of people skip voting when they realize their vote won't change the outcome.

The apathetic can be forced to show up, but they might just turn in blank ballots.

So it's not that I oppose compulsory voting,  I just think it's impact will be marginal.

[4everwarriors]

How many y'all pack heat, hey?

[DegenerateDish]

IBTL.

[wadesworld]

How many y'all pack heat, hey?

Not me.

[mu03eng]

IBTL.

[wadesworld]

More gun violence.

[tower912]

IBTL

[MU82]

How many y'all pack heat, hey?

I hope everybody does. We need more guns in this country, not fewer. Give a gun to every kid as he or she enters school. That's stop the violence!

Gotta run now and buy a few more for my collection. It's not enough for each of us to own a gun; we all must own several.

[jsglow]

In before the lock.

[Benny B]

I'm fine with compulsory voting,  but I don't think it changes anything.  A lot of people skip voting when they realize their vote won't change the outcome.

The apathetic can be forced to show up, but they might just turn in blank ballots.

So it's not that I oppose compulsory voting,  I just think it's impact will be marginal.

1) Billions of dollars will no longer be spent (or need to be spent) simply to get people to show up to the polls.

2) With the financial obstacles out of the way, viable third-party candidates will emerge.

3) Since at least half of the voting populace (i.e. the "apathetic") will not already committed to a D or R behind the names, many of these third-party candidates will actually stand a chance of being elected.

4) The "base" of the major parties become obsolete as they are now the collective minority.

5) Because they can no longer be reliant upon their base, the major party candidates will be forced to appeal to a wider audience based on the issues rather than simply "drumming up the base" using histrionics, fear, uncertainty and doubt (as is currently the case).

6) Incumbents are more likely to be held responsible for not upholding campaign positions/issues as they can no longer rely upon their base to dismiss failures "for the sake of the party."

[GooooMarquette]

"Thoughts and prayers" aren't nearly enough....

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

1) Billions of dollars will no longer be spent (or need to be spent) simply to get people to show up to the polls.

2) With the financial obstacles out of the way, viable third-party candidates will emerge.

3) Since at least half of the voting populace (i.e. the "apathetic") will not already committed to a D or R behind the names, many of these third-party candidates will actually stand a chance of being elected.

4) The "base" of the major parties become obsolete as they are now the collective minority.

5) Because they can no longer be reliant upon their base, the major party candidates will be forced to appeal to a wider audience based on the issues rather than simply "drumming up the base" using histrionics, fear, uncertainty and doubt (as is currently the case).

6) Incumbents are more likely to be held responsible for not upholding campaign positions/issues as they can no longer rely upon their base to dismiss failures "for the sake of the party."

Sounds like a lot of conjecture.  Is there any data to back this up? Maybe there is a study I don't know about.

I could just as easily say that the current voting population is statistically representative of the country as a whole.  But if you have some facts for your arguments,  I may be swayed.

[Pakuni]

1) Billions of dollars will no longer be spent (or need to be spent) simply to get people to show up to the polls.

2) With the financial obstacles out of the way, viable third-party candidates will emerge.

3) Since at least half of the voting populace (i.e. the "apathetic") will not already committed to a D or R behind the names, many of these third-party candidates will actually stand a chance of being elected.

4) The "base" of the major parties become obsolete as they are now the collective minority.

5) Because they can no longer be reliant upon their base, the major party candidates will be forced to appeal to a wider audience based on the issues rather than simply "drumming up the base" using histrionics, fear, uncertainty and doubt (as is currently the case).

6) Incumbents are more likely to be held responsible for not upholding campaign positions/issues as they can no longer rely upon their base to dismiss failures "for the sake of the party."

Ignoring the unconstitionality of your proposal .... it's pretty naive to think that the people who don't bother to vote today are suddenly going to study the issues and candidates, hold incumbents accountable and invest the time, money and effort necessary to develop viable third-party candidates.
These are the people least likely to study the issues, least likely to hold incumbents accountable and least likely to invest (money or time) in the process.
Instead, if required by law (and they won't be because, again, it's unconstitutional), they'll show up on election day and push some random buttons or, like in Australia when they did this, simply pick the first name on the ballot.
Or,  more likely, they'll just choose familiar names, i.e. the incumbents and major party candidates who will rule the airwaves. Compulsory voting is likely the have the exact opposite effect of what you desire.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I don't know about compulsory voting, but I think voting registration should be an opt out rather than an opt in.

That way you still give people the choice rather than having to "painstakingly" register.

The one problem I envision with that is what happens with change of address and whatnot.

[GGGG]

Ignoring the unconstitionality of your proposal .... it's pretty naive to think that the people who don't bother to vote today are suddenly going to study the issues and candidates, hold incumbents accountable and invest the time, money and effort necessary to develop viable third-party candidates.
These are the people least likely to study the issues, least likely to hold incumbents accountable and least likely to invest (money or time) in the process.
Instead, if required by law (and they won't be because, again, it's unconstitutional), they'll simply show up on election day and push some random buttons or, like in Austrialia, simply picking the first name on the ballot.
Or,  more likely, they'll just choose familiar names, i.e. the incumbents and major party candidates who will rule the airwaves. Compulsory voting is likely the have the exact opposite effect of what you desire.

 rather than just show up

Yeah the last thing I want is to have someone who wouldn't care to vote otherwise actually showing up and voting because they have to do so.

[ATL MU Warrior]

1) Billions of dollars will no longer be spent (or need to be spent) simply to get people to show up to the polls.

2) With the financial obstacles out of the way, viable third-party candidates will emerge.

3) Since at least half of the voting populace (i.e. the "apathetic") will not already committed to a D or R behind the names, many of these third-party candidates will actually stand a chance of being elected.

4) The "base" of the major parties become obsolete as they are now the collective minority.

5) Because they can no longer be reliant upon their base, the major party candidates will be forced to appeal to a wider audience based on the issues rather than simply "drumming up the base" using histrionics, fear, uncertainty and doubt (as is currently the case).

6) Incumbents are more likely to be held responsible for not upholding campaign positions/issues as they can no longer rely upon their base to dismiss failures "for the sake of the party."

I’ll have some of what you are smoking.

[Herman Cain]

1) Billions of dollars will no longer be spent (or need to be spent) simply to get people to show up to the polls.

2) With the financial obstacles out of the way, viable third-party candidates will emerge.

3) Since at least half of the voting populace (i.e. the "apathetic") will not already committed to a D or R behind the names, many of these third-party candidates will actually stand a chance of being elected.

4) The "base" of the major parties become obsolete as they are now the collective minority.

5) Because they can no longer be reliant upon their base, the major party candidates will be forced to appeal to a wider audience based on the issues rather than simply "drumming up the base" using histrionics, fear, uncertainty and doubt (as is currently the case).

6) Incumbents are more likely to be held responsible for not upholding campaign positions/issues as they can no longer rely upon their base to dismiss failures "for the sake of the party."

I am for  voting rights tied to property ownership/ reintroduction of poll tax etc. Those who own property , which could be broadly defined, or have some meaningful financial interest in instruments like 401-k , bank account , brokerage account etc could vote; or alternatively just pay the poll tax. 

My view is that if voting is tied to people who have a vested economic interest in our society will lead to long term outcomes that make sense.

My guess is that if the system I am advocating were implemented, the outcome would be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I am for  voting rights tied to property ownership/ reintroduction of poll tax etc. Those who own property , which could be broadly defined, or have some meaningful financial interest in instruments like 401-k , bank account , brokerage account etc could vote; or alternatively just pay the poll tax. 

My view is that if voting is tied to people who have a vested economic interest in our society will lead to long term outcomes that make sense.

My guess is that if the system I am advocating were implemented, the outcome would be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Performance Art

[Jay Bee]

Ban ban ban ban ban ban

Why doesn’t MU82 post more about Chicago violence and the shootings of so many innocents?

#PrayersUp
#TheRighteousHypocrites

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Ban ban ban ban ban ban

Why doesn’t MU82 post more about Chicago violence and the shootings of so many innocents?

#PrayersUp
#TheRighteousHypocrites

The snowiest of flakes

[Jay Bee]

The snowiest of flakes

^^^ ban dis gf-individual

[tower912]

Ban ban ban ban ban ban

Why doesn’t MU82 post more about Chicago violence and the shootings of so many innocents?

#PrayersUp
#TheRighteousHypocrites

Ban this guy.

[tower912]

Again.   And shut down the thread.  More random name calling from entrenched positions.

[MU82]

I am for  voting rights tied to property ownership/ reintroduction of poll tax etc. Those who own property , which could be broadly defined, or have some meaningful financial interest in instruments like 401-k , bank account , brokerage account etc could vote; or alternatively just pay the poll tax. 

My view is that if voting is tied to people who have a vested economic interest in our society will lead to long term outcomes that make sense.

My guess is that if the system I am advocating were implemented, the outcome would be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Yeah! And make 'em pass literacy tests, too! Also, they have to prove they are "nice." Yeah, that's the ticket!

[MU82]

Ban ban ban ban ban ban

Why doesn’t MU82 post more about Chicago violence and the shootings of so many innocents?

#PrayersUp
#TheRighteousHypocrites

You are ill.

Skol!

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Is 82's ban on starting threads in the superbar over?

IBTL

[mu03eng]

[mu_hilltopper]

I never would have predicted this thread would get locked.