Making you and your state adversaries, right? BTW who gets to pay the court costs? You might be able to pay, but poor might not be.
Welcome to America. This stuff happens every day where government faces off against individuals of lesser means. Sounds like a good argument for smaller goverment.
Not on ignore, that I am aware...but busy and no, did not see this. I was just responding to Sweet Lou's comment (and Sweet Lou should know me better than to say that). Ok, this does answer my question, to a degree. Actual polling locations, etc are supposed to be set up locally, at the precinct level. Is that not happening? As for voter ID laws, that has nothing to do with the problem that was described, which was terrible wait times at certain polling places. That is the problem I was responding to. Yes, various other laws etc are designed, unfortunately, to suppress votes...or at least that is a potential consequence. But setting up polling places that aren't sufficient to meet demand? Who handles that? The local precincts. Who, in the areas described, would be Democrats. Bringing me back to my question...why would Democrats be setting up polling places specifically to suppress Democratic votes??
Money that is used to pay for polling stations happens at the state level, not the local one. Majority of states are controlled by Republicans. Cities often get screwed by state gov't because cities pay most of the tax revenue but get less of the dollars back.
Fair answer, and don't disagree. It is much like the property tax/school issue. Money tends to flow back to the richer school districts who paid the most in, although the system is supposed to distribute equally, it never does. This isn't necessarily any attempt to suppress votes; it can simply be to keep those who pay in the most happy. Hard problem to solve. Local precincts should make a big issue out of it, and also look at creative ways to raise money on their own, or figure out how to more effectively spend what they have. Myself, I don't like it when either side does this, but it is going to happen...and it shouldn't. Just like how police respond faster to the districts where all the rich people live, even though crime tends to happen in the poorer districts. Government, like any other entity, works on the 'follow the money' principle. People who pay in the most are going to get preferential treatment.
Voting locations and machines aren't only subject to the state budget decisions. Deployment is determined by county officials, not city officials. County government tends to be more conservative than municipal governments. Look at Harris County: Ed Emmett (R) is the county judge and Stan Stanart (R) is the county clerk and in charge of the election division. I'm sure they're both consummate professionals (and I hope they retire as Rockets), but considerably more conservative than say Sylvester Turner. If they wanted to fix an election, they wouldn't fix it for the Democrats, even if Houston votes that way. Also, there have been scandals in the past where counties have done seemingly irrational deployments of machines that caused long waiting lines that may have reduced turnout. I kinda remember a 2014 event, but can't find it. Here's one from 2012, where Richland County, SC (home of Columbia, SC) left a bunch of machines in the warehouse while voters waited for hours in line: http://www.wistv.com/story/20223227...investigation-not-enough-voting-machines-used.
The beauty of more local government is that it is more .... local. Regardless of alignment, local officials are more responsive to issues raised by their citizens. So, people should be raising it as an issue. Most other people, regardless of affiliation, will want something to be be done, too. People, in general, want everyone to be treated fairly.
Maybe that was the intention, but it comes across as nothing but salt. Shouldn't it be funny if it's meant as humor?
She is at 65.2 million votes. She has a good shot of hitting Obama's 66 million votes. She has 2.5 million more votes than Trump and almost up 2% on him. I know its a moot point, but when someone has almost a 2% advantage I don't know how Trump can say he has any sort of mandate.
This is great news for Hillary 2016!! Of equal relevance as Hillary's total vote count, the Rockets beat the Warriors last night!
Trump is a pathological liar, so there is that. I think at this point that whenever Trump speaks the truth we can mark it down as a pure coincidence.
Well, as No Worries says more bluntly, he will say exactly whatever he wants. He says he won in an electoral "landslide" and that he would have won the popular vote if it was legit. That's poppycock, but that's where he operates. As the philosopher Adorno wrote (long ago) about Trump's type of ruler, they speak in wishes, not facts. And their fanatical followers just share the wishes, and this is their bond. "No company will ever take jobs out of America again!" Yeah, okay. "We are going to bring those jobs back to America!" Again, a pure fantasy, but a compelling one. Simple and easy to rally behind. "I actually won the popular vote. America loves me." Um, if you say so, and oh look, you do say so! Practically, it is brilliant for him to operate this way in fragmented 21st-century America. 1. His followers accept everything he says, period. And an increasing number of former non-follower, Fox News watching Republicans will take it on as truth (or a wink wink truth for their tax cut) because they are now in supreme power. 2. The media, such as it is, will just report "Trump says _____", and the occasional more professional outlet may add, "without any supporting evidence," or "despite experts warning that..." What reasonable people who worry about this pattern can do is support the institutions that can stand against a more scary future. The Yale historian Snyder published Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning earlier this year. He paints past extremism as cases where cultural institutions were too weak in key, stressful times. He has actually recently advocated for people dedicating themselves to following and supporting, say, certain media outlets that do good reporting (not just reporting that agrees with you, but people who actually do fact finding and long-form research. Skip a latte. Get a subscription. Support them. Skip another coffee drink this month, and put yourself on auto-pay a group that stands for civil liberties, etc.) Here's 20 things he suggests concerned people do if they want to protect America's freedoms in what could be extreme times ahead. This was published, surprisingly maybe, in the Dallas Morning News. Maybe that's worth it's own thread, but I'm sure it would just get crapped on by the brownshirts and those familiar old faces who are now getting sized for their own new shirts.
31% EC landslide was powered by about 107,000 votes in three states. Trump Landslide? Nope Of the 58 presidential contests, Trump's victory ranks #46.
You're picking and choosing your definition. The Republican party was down 10 points at one point, expecting to lose the Senate and expecting a new dominance of progressive liberalism like never seen before, bringing forth the death of the Republican party. Landslide = 'got your ass kicked' Republicans have full control, stock market went through the roof and consumer confidence is way up.... the complete opposite of what the liberal media predicted.
Not a fan of either, but Clinton won California by 4+ million votes, so with the exception of Claifornia and the popular vote being the criteria then Trump has a mandate.
Super Bowl 50 Panthers----------Broncos1st Downs--------------21------------------11 Total yards-------------315----------------194 Final Score-------------10------------------24 In other words, the Broncos won where it mattered.
