2024 Election

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Here you go again.......
You claim to agree with everything in regards to Moaling just posted. But then you have to figure out what the left believes so you can have a reason to side with them.

Voting is voting!!!!

There is no middle ground with voting.
The right is wanting to make sure one person per vote for citizens.
The left wants everyone in the country to have a vote because they will get all the votes from the illegals. Everyone also knows it's easier to commit voter fraud with mail-in ballots, which is the reason France has outlawed it and the middle-east countries and Russia love it.

It's not that hard to understand.

[gil]

Here you go again.......
You claim to agree with everything in regards to Moaling just posted. But then you have to figure out what the left believes so you can have a reason to side with them.

Voting is voting!!!!

There is no middle ground with voting.
The right is wanting to make sure one person per vote for citizens.
The left wants everyone in the country to have a vote because they will get all the votes from the illegals. Everyone also knows it's easier to commit voter fraud with mail-in ballots, which is the reason France has outlawed it and the middle-east countries and Russia love it.

It's not that hard to understand.

I'm not figuring out a way to side with anyone. But I do know that the Georgia Attorney General and Secretary of State, both elected Republicans, are against it. I'm open to hearing what their logic is, and what supporters of the election board have to say in response to these officials.

Or are you going to say "these are RINOs because they have spoken out against the elections board?"

"The left wants everyone in the country to have a vote because they will get all the votes from the illegals." That is what "the right" says, but I don't see any evidence/trace of a large number of people on the left saying this. It's putting words in people's mouths. Strawman argument.

I completely agree with "one person one vote for citizens." Completely, absolutely, no qualifications.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Here you go again.......
You claim to agree with everything in regards to Moaling just posted. But then you have to figure out what the left believes so you can have a reason to side with them.

Voting is voting!!!!

There is no middle ground with voting.
The right is wanting to make sure one person per vote for citizens.
The left wants everyone in the country to have a vote because they will get all the votes from the illegals. Everyone also knows it's easier to commit voter fraud with mail-in ballots, which is the reason France has outlawed it and the middle-east countries and Russia love it.

It's not that hard to understand.

I'm not figuring out a way to side with anyone. But I do know that the Georgia Attorney General and Secretary of State, both elected Republicans, are against it. I'm open to hearing what their logic is, and what supporters of the election board have to say in response to these officials.

Or are you going to say "these are RINOs because they have spoken out against the elections board?"

"The left wants everyone in the country to have a vote because they will get all the votes from the illegals." That is what "the right" says, but I don't see any evidence/trace of a large number of people on the left saying this. It's putting words in people's mouths. Strawman argument.

I completely agree with "one person one vote for citizens." Completely, absolutely, no qualifications.

What makes sense to you? Not what do others think?

What makes sense to you? Then it's not a right/left issue.

I believe that in this country only it's citizens should have THE RIGHT to vote (all local, state and federal).
I believe it's our DUTY to vote, so get off your ass and vote. That means if you need to plan a day off, or a lunchtime trip, you do it.

[just so you know, I didn't bother reading your post because it would be full of your typical boilerplate crap]

[gil]

Here you go again.......
You claim to agree with everything in regards to Moaling just posted. But then you have to figure out what the left believes so you can have a reason to side with them.

Voting is voting!!!!

There is no middle ground with voting.
The right is wanting to make sure one person per vote for citizens.
The left wants everyone in the country to have a vote because they will get all the votes from the illegals. Everyone also knows it's easier to commit voter fraud with mail-in ballots, which is the reason France has outlawed it and the middle-east countries and Russia love it.

It's not that hard to understand.

I'm not figuring out a way to side with anyone. But I do know that the Georgia Attorney General and Secretary of State, both elected Republicans, are against it. I'm open to hearing what their logic is, and what supporters of the election board have to say in response to these officials.

Or are you going to say "these are RINOs because they have spoken out against the elections board?"

"The left wants everyone in the country to have a vote because they will get all the votes from the illegals." That is what "the right" says, but I don't see any evidence/trace of a large number of people on the left saying this. It's putting words in people's mouths. Strawman argument.

I completely agree with "one person one vote for citizens." Completely, absolutely, no qualifications.

What makes sense to you? Not what do others think?

What makes sense to you? Then it's not a right/left issue.

I believe that in this country only it's citizens should have THE RIGHT to vote (all local, state and federal).
I believe it's our DUTY to vote, so get off your ass and vote. That means if you need to plan a day off, or a lunchtime trip, you do it.

[just so you know, I didn't bother reading your post because it would be full of your typical boilerplate crap]

In the past I've felt you were smart and worth talking with. If you aren't going to listen (it's not boilerplate by the way), I'll reconsider.

What makes sense to me is the clear principle (agreeing with you here) of "one personnel vote for citizens." That is, if you care to read what I wrote.

What I DO want to hear is how people plan to implement that principle. The unelected Georgia Elections Board made an administrative decision. The elected Attorney General and Secretary of State, both Republicans, disagree with the Elections Board. I am not going to knee-jerk disagree with the Elections Board because of that, but I'm not going to knee-jerk agree with them because of what you or anyone else says either.

[bpj]

On the face of it, I agree with what everyone says about the simple voting rule. Citizens get to vote, have strong, secure means of verification. Have the counting be accurate. Period.

My experience, however is that there is usually "another side". Why are there Republicans in Georgia who are against this decision by the elections board? (It's not a legislative decision, by the way, so maybe it will not hold up in court.) I haven't read what they (the other side) have said, so I think to be fair, I need to hear about this before I have a conclusion on this rule change.

As to charges of Jim Crow 2.0, I d[n't get it. But again, I've never heard directly what Warnock is saying, only what people (who are opposed to him) are saying about what he says. It sounds ridiculous to me on the face of it, but I feel I need to give him chance before I conclude.

If they're against secure elections, they're probably corrupt and a member of on the uniparty.

Unless anyone can come up with another reason why any of them would be against being 100% certain of the outcome of the elections, that should be the assumption imo.

Because it costs too much? Pfft. That's bogus and we all know it. We just sent hundreds of billions to other countries.

[bpj]

Good work libs!

Lol, dumbasses.

[gil]

Good work libs!

Lol, dumbasses.

So ... 96% of calls via alarm monitoring companies are NOT associated with a crime? And that is the liberals' fault???

I want to have more police. But this statistic makes me think: If the police responded to each of these calls, my tax dollars would going to a lot of wasted effort. Why not charge the homeowner for a police response to a false alarm?

[bpj]

Good work libs!

Lol, dumbasses.

So ... 96% of calls via alarm monitoring companies are NOT associated with a crime? And that is the liberals' fault???

I want to have more police. But this statistic makes me think: If the police responded to each of these calls, my tax dollars would going to a lot of wasted effort. Why not charge the homeowner for a police response to a false alarm?

I actually don't have much problem with the reasoning, if it's not fueled by an anti-police environment. If Seattle hasn't cut back on police, or having problems filling their police vacancies because of an anti-police environment, by all means, evaluate your processes.

If I were the hope-a-cop-shows-up-to-save-the-day type, I'd much rather receive a bill for a false alarm than not have them show up if needed. Otherwise, why have an alarm company to begin with?

I don't have a problem with it being charged back to the resident or the alarm company, especially if it's their fault.

[auroraave]

Good work libs!

Lol, dumbasses.

So ... 96% of calls via alarm monitoring companies are NOT associated with a crime? And that is the liberals' fault???

I want to have more police. But this statistic makes me think: If the police responded to each of these calls, my tax dollars would going to a lot of wasted effort. Why not charge the homeowner for a police response to a false alarm?

I actually don't have much problem with the reasoning, if it's not fueled by an anti-police environment. If Seattle hasn't cut back on police, or having problems filling their police vacancies because of an anti-police environment, by all means, evaluate your processes.

If I were the hope-a-cop-shows-up-to-save-the-day type, I'd much rather receive a bill for a false alarm than not have them show up if needed. Otherwise, why have an alarm company to begin with?

I don't have a problem with it being charged back to the resident or the alarm company, especially if it's their fault.

"Can't see the forest through the trees" happening here. Good grief. You understand you are now going to be paying for emergency services as a direct result of Democrat policy - right? RIGHT? Do we need a history lesson? Remember the George Floyd riots? THAT'S why you're gonna be paying for emergency services - services your tax dollars already covered. Time for an economic policy lesson, I guess.

Seattle allowed rioting - they allowed CHAZZ - where people died and businesses burned - because the mayor ACTIVELY MADE THE POLICE STAND DOWN. That violence and destruction - ALLOWED by the sitting Dem mayor had a massive ripple effect you knew was coming.

How many business were burned or destroyed? The ensuing lawlessness, rampant theft, lead to the mass exodus of businesses in Seattle - a drug store chain closed 50 locations - permanently. Amazon left, Macy's left the list goes on and on and on. All those businesses paid taxes and had employees who paid taxes into the local economy. All that money is gone. Millions of dollars - gone. Guess what that money paid for? Your emergency services.

Next up on the bill - The city had to pay for all the damages and destruction they allowed - which means what? Millions of dollars - gone.

Oh, it gets better, so pay attention. The lawsuits. DO you know how many business owners who lost everything - because of the mayor's negligence and failure to protect the city - were filed? How about the deaths? More lawsuits. The mayor was literally listed as a defendant in multiple lawsuits - a major reason she could not run again. Seattle is losing those lawsuits - they are libel in this situation. Millions more of your tax dollars - gone. Poof! Just like that. Money to pay for cops and firemen and teachers.

Do the math. Millions of dollars gone - out the door - and the tax base just shrunk - all as a result of staggering mismanagement by Seattle politicians. Now? You have higher taxes coming to offset the damage - I hear real estate taxes are increasing.

The same thing in Portland, SF, LA, NYC. By the way, didn't kamala actively support the riots and BLM? Didn't she offer to pay bail money for jailed rioters? She was all in on this stuff. Yeah, the usual suspects will conveniently 'forget' that.

You are literally paying out of pocket for services your tax dollars already paid for - but the money was squandered by absolute fucking morons.

But yeah, keep voting for that kind of incompetence, keep voting to be poorer. Normalizing being poorer is quite literally the democrats strategy.

The truly shocking part in all of tis - is that I have to point out what should be blatantly obvious to anyone with any memory, common sense, or a first grade level understanding of basic economics. There are repercussions for awful policies - and they are ALWAYS paid for by YOU.

Forest through the trees...

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

So ... 96% of calls via alarm monitoring companies are NOT associated with a crime? And that is the liberals' fault???

I want to have more police. But this statistic makes me think: If the police responded to each of these calls, my tax dollars would going to a lot of wasted effort. Why not charge the homeowner for a police response to a false alarm?

I actually don't have much problem with the reasoning, if it's not fueled by an anti-police environment. If Seattle hasn't cut back on police, or having problems filling their police vacancies because of an anti-police environment, by all means, evaluate your processes.

If I were the hope-a-cop-shows-up-to-save-the-day type, I'd much rather receive a bill for a false alarm than not have them show up if needed. Otherwise, why have an alarm company to begin with?

I don't have a problem with it being charged back to the resident or the alarm company, especially if it's their fault.

"Can't see the forest through the trees" happening here. Good grief. You understand you are now going to be paying for emergency services as a direct result of Democrat policy - right? RIGHT? Do we need a history lesson? Remember the George Floyd riots? THAT'S why you're gonna be paying for emergency services - services your tax dollars already covered. Time for an economic policy lesson, I guess.

Seattle allowed rioting - they allowed CHAZZ - where people died and businesses burned - because the mayor ACTIVELY MADE THE POLICE STAND DOWN. That violence and destruction - ALLOWED by the sitting Dem mayor had a massive ripple effect you knew was coming.

How many business were burned or destroyed? The ensuing lawlessness, rampant theft, lead to the mass exodus of businesses in Seattle - a drug store chain closed 50 locations - permanently. Amazon left, Macy's left the list goes on and on and on. All those businesses paid taxes and had employees who paid taxes into the local economy. All that money is gone. Millions of dollars - gone. Guess what that money paid for? Your emergency services.

Next up on the bill - The city had to pay for all the damages and destruction they allowed - which means what? Millions of dollars - gone.

Oh, it gets better, so pay attention. The lawsuits. DO you know how many business owners who lost everything - because of the mayor's negligence and failure to protect the city - were filed? How about the deaths? More lawsuits. The mayor was literally listed as a defendant in multiple lawsuits - a major reason she could not run again. Seattle is losing those lawsuits - they are libel in this situation. Millions more of your tax dollars - gone. Poof! Just like that. Money to pay for cops and firemen and teachers.

Do the math. Millions of dollars gone - out the door - and the tax base just shrunk - all as a result of staggering mismanagement by Seattle politicians. Now? You have higher taxes coming to offset the damage - I hear real estate taxes are increasing.

The same thing in Portland, SF, LA, NYC. By the way, didn't kamala actively support the riots and BLM? Didn't she offer to pay bail money for jailed rioters? She was all in on this stuff. Yeah, the usual suspects will conveniently 'forget' that.

You are literally paying out of pocket for services your tax dollars already paid for - but the money was squandered by absolute fucking morons.

But yeah, keep voting for that kind of incompetence, keep voting to be poorer. Normalizing being poorer is quite literally the democrats strategy.

The truly shocking part in all of tis - is that I have to point out what should be blatantly obvious to anyone with any memory, common sense, or a first grade level understanding of basic economics. There are repercussions for awful policies - and they are ALWAYS paid for by YOU.

Forest through the trees...

Sorry AA, I have to TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!!

No 1st grader would understand this. This is more in tune with a 8th or 9th grader. But either way, it's a glaring red mark on the intelligence of the common voter.