Lamp,

I absolutely will do whatever I can, in my limited capacity, to prevent liberals from having more power.

Bell,

Looking for QCP response to your question.

Only a matter of time before we hear more stories of death and medical supplies deprivation for people stuck in remote areas.

The federal government botched it and private citizens on the outside went in to provide assistance.

Laura,

How f dumb are you anyway?

I've said Trump is not my choice for Republican candidate but I have no choice since he is the nominee.

And Harris is out of the question.

Hans,

Some celebrities are fairly bright but there are many more people who are unknowns and much brighter.

The more pompous they come off, the less likely I will respect anything they say.

Hans,

"Quite obviously you do, Bill. By commenting."

Quite the contrary.

I find it interesting these people think so highly of themselves they believe their opinion matters.

In reality their lives have been filled with yes men who constantly cater to their egos for a living.

And sadly a lot of people have some sort of celebrity worship mentality.

Who TF cares what these overblown egos, who start believing they're as great as their hangers-on tell them they are, really think.

I don't.

All the pdf files and budgets in the world are meaningless until costs actually come down.

Does that mean electricity, insurance and food is coming down?

Sen,

"Is that not pure democracy?"

No...it's pure fantasy.

Even families don't function that way.

If someone isn't running the household, there's always negotiations at a minimum "I'll vote with you if you do this or that for me".

The idea of a culture operating by "pure democracy" would fail due to everyone voting in their own best interest with the least amount of responsibility.

Red,

"Is there an inexpensive class on voting that would provide "experience or training"?"

You're taking my post out of context.

Sentinel wrote, "In a pure democracy, there would be no elected representatives. Every law and every executive and judicial decision would be subject to a popular vote."

That's what I was responding to when I said "you've got to be kidding"

Sen was correct about compromise though.

Danni,

You are failing to understand the US is a coalition of states.

Not mob rule.

Sen,

You mean let people with no legal training or experience vote based on "feelings"?

You got to be kidding.....

THAT'S why our system of government exists. To keep wacky opinions like yours from running the country.

We would have a handful of states always controlling the election results which would be grossly unfair to some other states.

United States is a collection of states where every state should have representation.

Dan,

"it's purposeful suppression."

I knew that was your point all along.

You now have to prove its deliberate discrimination and not just poor planning.

Dan,

"You never answered if 7 hours is a valid reason."

Yes..I answered your question.

I said it's a problem that needs fixed.

Does that not imply I think it's excessive?

Dan,

"And do you agree SEVEN HOURS is "hampering"?"

Sounds like a voting precinct needs to fix a problem...but that doesn't make it deliberate hampering as you are suggesting.

You're trying to frame the conversation into the direction of a specific conclusion.

Again..you have to prove it is deliberate discrimination to make the point you're trying to make.

Dan,

If everyone is required to vote in person unless they have a valid reason for getting an absentee ballot, sounds to me everyone is being treated the same.

Making special accomidations isn't required.

Just not discriminate.

Dan,

Easier for convience sake is nice but not a requirement.

Harder sounds like discrimination if it is proven to be a deliberate attempt to hamper voting.

Dan,

"Should the ability of a legal voter casting a legal vote be made EASIER, or HARDER?"

This will go over your head but my answer is neither.

If you can make the case discrimination is going on then you would have a point.

Sy,

Maybe we need mobile concierge service.

Bring the ballot to your door.

Can't inconvenience anyone.

Dan,

"just an increase of one method and a decrease of the other."

Absentee ballots have always had inherit problems.

2020 we saw wide scale use meaning those existing problems were compounded.

Small scale wasn't considered anything that might jeopardize final results and the winner.

Wide scale does have the potential to impact election results.

Eventually we will likely see a FUBAR election. We have to make changes to insure that day never comes.

When I say "early voting"...I am not referring to early mail-in ballots.

I am only referring to early in-person voting recording and tabulating your vote before you leave the polling station.

Rein,

Mail-in ballots...well...now that you bring it up....

haha....nothing to add. I am seeing more states increasing early voting this election.

I am all in favor of that.

That is a great solution for people who want to vote. Fewer opportunties for human error and fraud.

If you can't find transportation to the polls within a few weeks, you don't really want to vote.

I personally trust the results of early voting more than mail-in voting. Provided we don't hear about some horrendous hack, public confidence will be much higher in accepting the results than wide scale mail-in ballots used in 2020.

If you can't get to the polls, apply for an absentee ballot but being lazy isn't a legitimate reason.

Rein,

"They saw the demented------------- bus his filth-smearing cop killers into DC on J6."

That is a stupid comparison.

Absolutely stupid.