Kavanaugh

pjl44 said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

josevolution said:

Had to register for either Rep or Dem to be eligible to vote in November here in NY ...

what? I can understand about primaries but an actual election? wtf?

I was wrong i thought i couldn't vote in midterm elections i just went back and looked and i can but now i registered as a democrat i'm just gonna leave it and change it back to Independent after November , i know for sure i was turned away from the primaries a couple of yrs back as i was not registered as a D or R ...

Does that not make perfect sense though?
Why should someone not in the party get to vote who is that party's representative? 
Everyone gets to vote in the final election. 

so you are saying those unaffiliated with a particular party should only be allowed in half the process? fuck that.

Well yeah. If you aren’t apart of the party you shouldn’t be picking their candidate. I understand what you are saying but it’s really not that big of a deal to register and re-register party affiliate. 

I personally would prefer it if independents could vote in 1 primary of their choosing though.

That's how it works in Massachusetts. I'm registered Independent and can choose my ballot in a primary. If you're registered with a party, you're locked into that party's ballot.

I’ve seen that in a few states. Don’t know which ones. When I was in Iowa you had to be registered for a party. 

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

josevolution said:

Had to register for either Rep or Dem to be eligible to vote in November here in NY ...

what? I can understand about primaries but an actual election? wtf?

I was wrong i thought i couldn't vote in midterm elections i just went back and looked and i can but now i registered as a democrat i'm just gonna leave it and change it back to Independent after November , i know for sure i was turned away from the primaries a couple of yrs back as i was not registered as a D or R ...

Does that not make perfect sense though?
Why should someone not in the party get to vote who is that party's representative? 
Everyone gets to vote in the final election. 

so you are saying those unaffiliated with a particular party should only be allowed in half the process? fuck that.

If that process is to put forward a nomination, yes.
Why should someone who is not affiliated with any group have a say who their nominee is?
You can still vote, no one is saying if you aren't part of a party you can't vote. But why should a democrat help decide who the republicans put forward as a nominee?
Most people who do just vote for the worse candidate just to make their look better anyway.

Jason P said:

I think you should be registered to a party to vote in that primary.  Perhaps in days past there was a gentlecarbonbasedlifeform's agreement that you would not interfere with a party you don't plan on voting for, but those days are long gone.

Exactly. Those who vote outside their party aren't voting for someone, they are really voting against someone else. Interfere was a good word, they are attempting to put someone else on the ballot than who they believe the party will vote for.

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

josevolution said:

Had to register for either Rep or Dem to be eligible to vote in November here in NY ...

what? I can understand about primaries but an actual election? wtf?

I was wrong i thought i couldn't vote in midterm elections i just went back and looked and i can but now i registered as a democrat i'm just gonna leave it and change it back to Independent after November , i know for sure i was turned away from the primaries a couple of yrs back as i was not registered as a D or R ...

Does that not make perfect sense though?
Why should someone not in the party get to vote who is that party's representative? 
Everyone gets to vote in the final election. 

so you are saying those unaffiliated with a particular party should only be allowed in half the process? fuck that.

If that process is to put forward a nomination, yes.
Why should someone who is not affiliated with any group have a say who their nominee is?
You can still vote, no one is saying if you aren't part of a party you can't vote. But why should a democrat help decide who the republicans put forward as a nominee?
Most people who do just vote for the worse candidate just to make their look better anyway.

If that's so bad, then why is it ok to donate money to a party then run against that party at a later date? Certainly big money has more impact than a single vote?

Trump gave tons of money to the dems and Clintons when he believed it could help him out when they were in power. Then he switched to GOP when he realized he could con them to vote for him by attacking Obama's citizenship

Seems to me if I am an independent and want to cast a single vote in either  of the primaries, that would be far less damaging to our country 

It was just explained. 
Those who vote in the primaries in another party usually have no intent on voting for that person again. It is to sabotage the other party's nominee, so they put forth a less qualified one.
And that is the purpose of such voting laws, to prevent that. So that registered repubs don;t go vote Bernie Sanders in believe they have a better chance beating him, they should be allowed to vote on who they think is best, not who the other party thinks is worse. 
Why shouldn't the dems and repubs have their own say in who they nominate?

pjl44 said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

josevolution said:

Had to register for either Rep or Dem to be eligible to vote in November here in NY ...

what? I can understand about primaries but an actual election? wtf?

I was wrong i thought i couldn't vote in midterm elections i just went back and looked and i can but now i registered as a democrat i'm just gonna leave it and change it back to Independent after November , i know for sure i was turned away from the primaries a couple of yrs back as i was not registered as a D or R ...

Does that not make perfect sense though?
Why should someone not in the party get to vote who is that party's representative? 
Everyone gets to vote in the final election. 

so you are saying those unaffiliated with a particular party should only be allowed in half the process? fuck that.

If that process is to put forward a nomination, yes.
Why should someone who is not affiliated with any group have a say who their nominee is?
You can still vote, no one is saying if you aren't part of a party you can't vote. But why should a democrat help decide who the republicans put forward as a nominee?
Most people who do just vote for the worse candidate just to make their look better anyway.

If that's so bad, then why is it ok to donate money to a party then run against that party at a later date? Certainly big money has more impact than a single vote?

Trump gave tons of money to the dems and Clintons when he believed it could help him out when they were in power. Then he switched to GOP when he realized he could con them to vote for him by attacking Obama's citizenship

Seems to me if I am an independent and want to cast a single vote in either  of the primaries, that would be far less damaging to our country 

It was just explained. 
Those who vote in the primaries in another party usually have no intent on voting for that person again. It is to sabotage the other party's nominee, so they put forth a less qualified one.
And that is the purpose of such voting laws, to prevent that. So that registered repubs don;t go vote Bernie Sanders in believe they have a better chance beating him, they should be allowed to vote on who they think is best, not who the other party thinks is worse. 
Why shouldn't the dems and repubs have their own say in who they nominate?

I suspect someone intent on showing up to vote against a candidate would just switch their party affiliation ahead of time. It's not difficult.

I really like having the option as an Independent. Especially in a Presidential primary - by the time Massachusetts' was held in 2016 several candidates had dropped out. I took the D ballot but probably would have taken the R if it was a couple months earlier.

Thats true, it really isnt difficult. But the intent of the rule is still the same. Its to keep the integrity of the election. Yes, some will always find ways around it. 
Its like all the senior class voting for the ugly girl for prom nominee for the jr class, so their senior girl can easily win in the final vote.

mickeyrat said:

stuckinline said:

Steve King's post has really got me fired up. He annoys me already but this was just unnecessary. And the sad truth is that in about 10 or so years, King would force that little angel to have a baby - 10, 11, 12, 13 years old, doesn't matter. Once that little angel hits puberty she no longer is an angel, she is an incubator.

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

my2hands said:

I love people when people get offended by a rock gig poster lol

But had no issue with children in cages

Or children who are likely to never see their parents again. Ever. And yet consider themselves “Christian.” Can I get a praise be the lord?

So I haven’t seen anywhere in the news but has illegal crossings gone down since this policy was implemented?

If they did are you implying that separating children from their parents, losing track of them and knowing a percentage will never see their parents again is an effective and acceptable illegal immigration enforcement strategy that you can support?

You must have the best dinner conversations with your wife lol. 
And to answer your question, of course not. 

Never once have I thought you might conditionally support such things, FWIW.

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

my2hands said:

I love people when people get offended by a rock gig poster lol

But had no issue with children in cages

Or children who are likely to never see their parents again. Ever. And yet consider themselves “Christian.” Can I get a praise be the lord?

So I haven’t seen anywhere in the news but has illegal crossings gone down since this policy was implemented?

If they did are you implying that separating children from their parents, losing track of them and knowing a percentage will never see their parents again is an effective and acceptable illegal immigration enforcement strategy that you can support?

You must have the best dinner conversations with your wife lol. 
And to answer your question, of course not. 

Never once have I thought you might conditionally support such things, FWIW.

Thank you, I appreciate that. 

This swearing-in is a Republican circle jerk.

mickeyrat said:

First official picture of the new court...LMFAO