Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Roll Call: Who is voting early? Who is waiting til Nov. 5 (and why?)

HeelYeah2012 said:
What don’t you support about the constitutional amendment? I was reading my sample ballot and the amendment seemed like something I would hope almost anyone would support. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
What do you understand will be changed or benefitted by the amendment? it's pointless posturing by Republicans. You should discourage the passage of meaningless amendments that are only meant to confuse people.
 
rodoheel said:
What do you understand will be changed or benefitted by the amendment? it's pointless posturing by Republicans. You should discourage the passage of meaningless amendments that are only meant to confuse people.
Click to expand...
On this very thread, a link was shared that said the amendment is somehow being used to spread “anti immigrant rhetoric”. It’s not anti immigrant rhetoric to say that you have to be a citizen of the United States to vote. The results of this vote will show just how far off the deep end 30% or so of the state has gone (whatever percentage votes no for it)
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
On this very thread, a link was shared that said the amendment is somehow being used to spread “anti immigrant rhetoric”. It’s not anti immigrant rhetoric to say that you have to be a citizen of the United States to vote. The results of this vote will show just how far off the deep end 30% or so of the state has gone (whatever percentage votes no for it)
Click to expand...
THERE.IS.ALREADY.A.FUCKING.LAW.ENFORCING.THIS.
 
Macksbrownies said:
THERE.IS.ALREADY.A.FUCKING.LAW.ENFORCING.THIS.
Click to expand...
And yet a poster on this thread has advocated for a 16 year old voting age and for illegals to be able to vote in local elections.

When you have a party who has gone so far off the rails on an issue like the Dems have with immigration, it’s an obvious move for the Republicans to put a common sense measure like this on the ballot and see how many Dems will vote against it. Just to prove how weird they are.
 
I assisted my wife canvassing for the Harris campaign in Concord today. We knocked on 26 campaign office selected doors in a mixed but predominately black neighborhood, and I made the following observations:
1) at only three houses had the residents already voted (they voted for Harris and Stein)
2) at 8-9 houses the residents had not voted but were going to vote for Harris and Stein and in several it was 1-3 higher resident count than the campaign office had listed
3) the black men were very enthusiastic about voting for Harris and it was mostly black men that we talked with
4) the majority of people are not home on a weekday afternoon :)
5) canvassing is pretty cool - we plan to do another neighborhood this weekend.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
On this very thread, a link was shared that said the amendment is somehow being used to spread “anti immigrant rhetoric”. It’s not anti immigrant rhetoric to say that you have to be a citizen of the United States to vote. The results of this vote will show just how far off the deep end 30% or so of the state has gone (whatever percentage votes no for it)
Click to expand...
That is a complete non-answer. Let me try again. What do you understand will be changed or benefitted by the amendment? Do you even know what the state constitution already says?

here is the current language:

"Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age, and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided."

Here is the proposed amended language:

"Only a citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age and otherwise possessing the qualifications for voting shall be entitled to vote at any election in this State."

So what change do you think is being made? And why do you think the ballot initiative doesn't even include the current language or tell voters that this is amending language that already exists in the Constitution? Why do you think Republicans feel the need to mislead voters about the need for this amendment?
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
And yet a poster on this thread has advocated for a 16 year old voting age and for illegals to be able to vote in local elections.

When you have a party who has gone so far off the rails on an issue like the Dems have with immigration, it’s an obvious move for the Republicans to put a common sense measure like this on the ballot and see how many Dems will vote against it. Just to prove how weird they are.
Click to expand...
You can @ me next time and not misrepresent my position.

I said that I think localities should be allowed to decide whether they want non citizens to vote in local elections. Notice nothing in that says anything about whether they’re an illegal or legal immigrant.
 
Paine said:
You can @ me next time and not misrepresent my position.

I said that I think localities should be allowed to decide whether they want non citizens to vote in local elections. Notice nothing in that says anything about whether they’re an illegal or legal immigrant.
Click to expand...
I’m not even saying you’re wrong or crazy, just pointing out to others that there are definitely folks who don’t support the “you must be 18 and must be a citizen to vote”. You don’t support either of those rules.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
I’m not even saying you’re wrong or crazy, just pointing out to others that there are definitely folks who don’t support the “you must be 18 and must be a citizen to vote”. You don’t support either of those rules.
Click to expand...
I mean, in your second paragraph you used my position to claim that the Democratic Party had “gone off the rails” on the immigration issue. That sounds to me like you think my position is crazy. And we both know full well that my position isn’t indicative of the position of the Democratic Party.
 
Paine said:
I mean, in your second paragraph you used my position to claim that the Democratic Party had “gone off the rails” on the immigration issue. That sounds to me like you think my position is crazy. And we both know full well that my position isn’t indicative of the position of the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
Ok you’re right, I do think you are off the reservation crazy for that one position. I did say that. But I like you as a poster despite our differing viewpoints so it’s nothing personal against you - just think the ideas are crazy, not the person, if that makes sense.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
Ok you’re right, I do think you are off the reservation crazy for that one position. I did say that. But I like you as a poster despite our differing viewpoints so it’s nothing personal against you - just think the ideas are crazy, not the person, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I think if you’d engage a bit with the idea of noncitizen residents voting in local elections instead of dismissing it out of hand, you’d realize it’s not crazy.

Not saying you’d agree with it, but it’s not a crazy position to have. There are localities in the U.S. that allow it as we speak.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
I’m not even saying you’re wrong or crazy, just pointing out to others that there are definitely folks who don’t support the “you must be 18 and must be a citizen to vote”. You don’t support either of those rules.
Click to expand...
Big difference between requiring citizenship to vote for President of the US and requiring citizenship to vote for your local school board. Are you able to discern the difference?

EDIT to Add: We are letting HY2012 derail this thread - probably should be its own thread so I will not respond here any further.
 
Paine said:
I think if you’d engage a bit with the idea of non-citizen residents voting in local elections instead of dismissing it out of hand, you’d realize it’s not crazy.

Not saying you’d agree with it, but it’s not a crazy position to have. There are localities in the U.S. that allow it as we speak.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons I like you more than I like most posters here is because I get the impression that me, you & CFord could all grab beers and talk about our different (sometimes significantly different) viewpoints without going at each other’s throats and taking it personally.

I have a cousin who is a Bernie Bro and he gets along with my dad (who is a Fox News-watching Trump supporter) really well. They mercilessly make fun of each other’s political beliefs but they recognize that family/friendships supersede political differences.

I don’t mean to put words in your mouth if you disagree with that and you’d actually tell me to just fuck off even in real life. But I get the impression that you come to the conversation with a less combative disposition than most here, and for that I appreciate the discourse with you!

Truly didn’t mean to say anything bad about you personally even if I do think it’s absurd to let non citizens vote in our elections (even if just local ones).
 
heelfan108 said:
Big difference between requiring citizenship to vote for President of the US and requiring citizenship to vote for your local school board. Are you able to discern the difference?

EDIT to Add: We are letting HY2012 derail this thread - probably should be its own thread so I will not respond here any further.
Click to expand...
I do see the difference but I disagree with it in both cases. Happy to drop the subject and get this back on topic about early voting.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
I do see the difference but I disagree with it in both cases. Happy to drop the subject and get this back on topic about early voting.
Click to expand...
Conveniently without ever actually answering the question of what you think the purpose of this amendment actually is?
 
Enigma94 said:
HeelYeah was the guy PT Barnum was referring to when he said there is a sucker born every minute. He's now outraged that people wouldn't vote for a law that's already a law. He falls for every MAGA canard that comes along.
Click to expand...
In fairness to Heelyeah, California has a proposition on the ballot this year to modify the constitutional definition of marriage -- even though gay marriage is already legal in the state. And I think we did something similar with abortion the last election. So, amending the constitution to more formally codify a law is not something limited to Republicans. Democrats virtue signal, too. (I know, I know -- it is not exactly the same. But the idea that California is ever going to ban gay marriage? If that were to ever happen, the constitution would likely be amended yet again, too -- so it really is a pointless proposition other than virtue signaling).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top