Republicans

[Cunt]

Social media should have focused harder on government workers wasting 'company time'.

Instead it was all wasted on gender-identity politicking and snapchatting dick pics...

[pErvinalia]

You're a one track record, aren't you?

[Svartalf]

not everybody happens to have a 24 track brain like I do... well, 8 track given that 8 are permanently focussed on sex and 8 on the lady I love and my depression... doesn't leave that much room to think of other things.

[Forty Two]

I don't know - one doesn't have to be emotionally triggered to take a view on this. A 10% disenfranchisement rate is really quite high though. In Florida Trump beat Clinton by 112,911 votes, or 1.2% (Wiki).

So? Is there some assumption that felons would vote for or against Trump at a different rate than other voters? And, again, this is a public policy decision to be made via the representative democratic process, or by direct referendum of the people. We'll see what the people want in November. If they don't want felons voting, so be it.

The total votes cast and counted was 9,419,886, and with Wiki saying that this accounts for a 75% turnout we can estimate the number of registered voters at around 12.5 million. A 10% disenfranchisement rate amounts to roughly 1.25 million excluded citizens. That number of excluded votes equals 13.3% of the turnout (10% of registered voter), and the total difference between the two main candidates amounts to a mere 9% of that excluded total. These are rough, back-of-the-envelope calculations, and I'm not saying that reinstating disenfranchised voters before 2016 would have swung it for Clinton - that's not really the issue or the point. I'm just pointing out that even if we estimate turnout among the otherwise excluded population at a rather low 50% it still adds up to a significant number of excluded votes, particularly given the slim difference between the two main candidates which secured all 29 of Florida's electoral college votes for Trump. I think this supports my earlier point about democracy being secured and legitimised by extending participation rather than limiting it.

I think an argument can also be made that a voter base should be vested or committed to the rule of law, and that blocks of voters that do not respect serious laws are not conducive to a functioning democracy."a man who breaks the laws he has authorized his agent to make for his own governance could fairly have been thought to have abandoned the right to participate in further administering the compact... It can scarcely be deemed unreasonable for a state to decide that perpetrators of serious crimes shall not take part in electing the legislators who make the laws..." Green v Board of Elections of NY (1967) https://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefi ... _board.pdf

The US Supreme Court said in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974) that "California, in disenfranchising convicted felons who have completed their sentences and paroles, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause...

Although the Court has never given plenary consideration to the precise question of whether a State may constitutionally exclude some or all convicted felons from the franchise, we have indicated approval of such exclusions on a number of occasions... recently we have strongly suggested in dicta that exclusion of convicted felons from the franchise violates no constitutional provision...

But it is not for us to choose one set of values over the other. If respondents are correct, and the view which they advocate is indeed the more enlightened one, presumably the people of the State of California will ultimately come around to the view. And if they do not do so, their failure is some evidence, at least, of the fact that there are two sides to the argument."

I wonder if there's enough interest in Florida for the referendum on the proposed amendment to pass? The article suggest a 67:27% split in favour of the amendment, which is encouraging to say the least, but whether that transfers into actually votes is another thing entirely.

That's always a good question.

I'll be voting yes on Amendments 1 and 2 to increase the Homestead Tax deduction (that's an increase in the percentage value of a home that would be exempted from non-school related property tax). And an assessment cap to limit increases in property taxes. That's vital for homeownership, and property taxes are really a terrible way to raise money. Not only do you have to pay sales/transfer taxes, fees and costs for deeds and other documents, and the like when buying a house, but then you have to basically pay rent to the government for the privilege of owning a house? Never liked that idea...

I think I'll vote no on Amendment 3, which would vest control of casino gambling in popular referendums. I don't think that's necessary. The legislature should deal with that.

Amendment 4 is the voter restoration bill, which restores the right to vote for felons -- but exempts murder and "sex offenses." Not sure where I'll go with this one.

Amendment 5 - I like this one - supermajority to be required to impose or raise taxes! Nice.

Amendment 6 - is Marsy's Law "bill of rights for crime victims." I'm going to have to look deeper into this. The law sounds rather benign when I read the summaries. Looks like it has bipartisan support. Hmmmm... suspicious.... Amendment 6 also would impose mandatory retirement age for judges. I don't like age discrimination.

Amendment 7 relates to First Responder benefits. I think it's not appropriate for a constitutional amendment. Pass it in the legislature. So, no on that.

Amendment 8 is school board term limits - I vote no. If people want a person in long term, the solution is to vote or vote for someone else.

Amendment 9 - prohibiting offshore oil and gas drilling and prohibiting vaping indoors? That's a no on that. I want there to be oil and gas drilling and the anti-vaping craze needs to stop. It's not the same as smoking.

Anyway, there's a few more less interesting ones. The last one - 13 - is to make dog racing illegal in Florida. I don't know. I am not interested in dog racing, but it seems weird that it's a constitutional amendment. Go to the legislature, I usually prefer.

[Animavore]

This fuckwit is from India. He should know well colonies don't provide. They get shit taken from them.

Not that Puerto Rico is a colony.

[Tero]

Cruz: Trump's lapdog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miKJtJCVeuo

[Animavore]

[Animavore]

It's kinda refreshing when Republicans come out and say what they really feel, unlike those who hide behind weasel words like the coward in the White House and some here on this forum.

Maine Governor Paul LePage criticised for 'racist' remarks

The governor of Maine has said that people of colour were enemies of his state, and appeared to suggest they should be shot.

Speaking about Maine's effort to combat drug crime, Paul LePage said that "the enemy right now... are people of colour or people of Hispanic origin".

"When you go to war... and the enemy dresses in red and you dress in blue, then you shoot at red," he said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37204837

[Animavore]

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

REPUBLICANS. Possible is worst party in all two of American political party, even beating rival Democrats for title. Where is party of government subsidize strippers, liquor, and automatic weapon?

[Tero]

Republican president grab pussy! Follow him. Bring own pussy. Use tax cut to buy.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Republican president grab pussy! Follow him. Bring own pussy. Use tax cut to buy.

Grab for pussy is nice to be sure, but Avtomat prefer pussy is willing and eager for grab. Is not make for compatible with Official Platform of Republican Party.

[pErvinalia]

We've missed you, Automat.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

We've missed you, Automat.

Perhaps is time for recheck windage and elevation, then!

[Joe]

We've missed you, Automat.

Perhaps is time for recheck windage and elevation, then!

Always sound advice, Tovarisch. I don't think we've met, so greetings and welcome back.