As a general rule, yes, but then that time period spans a lot of years and a lot of leaders, and some were better than others.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
It doesn't say "an office of the board". It says the board, which necessitates some basic extrapolation to come to any workable interpretation to begin with.
The satellite offices are offices that have been opened and designated for work purposes by them. They even will have had officers employed by the state or county working on-site. But none of this counts because there may not have been direct employees of the county board working there at the same time? These super-serious dividing lines, which aren't even clearly stipulated in the legislation, are becoming pretty immaterial.
I very much doubt he'd have any interest in these borderline quibbles, as he tends not to regard any of this as democratic anyway. Hyperfocusing on such partisan minutiae means you're a little closer to becoming Houseman #2.
Last edited:
I can't find any actual detail on these supposed plans other than his speeches this week ranting about tariffs and us manufacturing initiatives. I won't get into how thats worked out for him in the past.
Still it was enough excitement to jump his stock which dipped under $12 yesterday back up to $14 this morning. No idea if thats supporter money or actual investors.
*I also need to make a correction as to not be a liar. Barrons is saying its unlikely the top investors were behind the devastating sell off this week. Large unique trades like that are supposed to include trade disclosures available to the public. So I think they may not be the source.
Last edited:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,478
- 2,967
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
JD Vance cries because only 12 people came out to support him in Kenosha, WI.
What a big strong alpha male he is.
JD Vance In Tears After Speaking Only Twelve Supporters In Kenosha, Wisconsin - Thenewsglobe.net
The news of JD Vance being emotional after his address to only twelve supporters in Kenosha, Wisconsin highlights the challenges he may be facing in gaining
thenewsglobe.net
What a big strong alpha male he is.
Correct, it says "the office of the board".
It's not the scale I'm referring to, it's the willingness to make any argument that supports your desired winners, and act as though any other position is completely unreasonable, even when your position isn't based on reason in the first place.
Actually, no, the only relevant piece of the legislation itself you posted was this:
"Such envelope shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, or deliver it in person to said county board of election." That's the bit that specifies where mail or personal delivery may be made. Not "to the office of the board"; but "to said county board".
You have interpreted this to mean it may only go to an office where members of that board are actively working, which involves some extrapolation that isn't in the text-- extrapolation you've made as unreasonably specific and unnecessarily restrictive as possible.
It beggars belief that you cannot see this is precisely what you're engaged in right now.
Last edited:
Something made me curious about gun violence stats after watching this, as to why the relationship of mass shooting/gun violence to gun ownership numbers in say the 50’s was basically the inverse of what it is today.
This comment shed some light on it -
Answer to Why are there so many school shootings these days? It was almost unheard of in the 50s, 60s and 70s. One could buy a gun at any local store with no permit and background check. We had schools, kids & guns back then. What is causing this today?
I started this as a comment on another answer, but then realized it would make a better answer than a comment.
I've been in law enforcement, and in the fire service, for coming up on 20 years. Along the way I've done a lot: jail officer, jail supervisor, training officer, deputy sheriff, patrol supervisor, SWAT team member, SWAT sniper, SWAT sniper team leader, SWAT trainer, armorer, firearms instructor, firefighter, fire lieutenant, emergency medical RESPONDER, EMR instructor, and on and on, with no end planned currently.
That being said, the last paragraph of another top answer holds the most weight. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, a push began to end the practice of institutionalizing the severely mentally ill. Instead of placing them in an environment in which they are safer, and society at large is safer, we started keeping the mentally ill in the community, on the premise that it was more humane.
Unfortunately, the result has been less compliance with treatment plans, self-medicating with illicit drugs and alcohol — which makes matters worse, and the public gets exposed to the homicidal outbursts that arise. Currently, it is next to impossible to have even the most extremely mentally ill people institutionalized until they have actually killed someone.
Until then, it's a revolving door of short two- or three-day to maybe a week or two stints of inpatient treatment, at the most, before release with a bottle of pills and an appointment at the local mental health office, which is overloaded with patients, or a 24-hour observation at the local ER and discharge instructions to contact the same overloaded mental health office for an appointment. Other times, the ER releases them after 15 minutes to free up the room.
Case in point: a little over a year ago, we were repeatedly dealing with a man who was showing signs of some advanced mental illness. He was seeing and hearing things that weren't there, patrolling his property with a gun (he lived in a residential area of quarter-acre lots with dozens of neighbors in all directions), threatening neighbors who he believed were spying on him and messing with him, and actually shooting at things that weren't there. He also called several times to report “burglaries,” claiming his neighbors and the government were listening to him and controlling his thoughts through his light sockets, and wanting his house swept for listening devices. We gathered up the evidence, took it to the judge, the judge found probable cause and issued a detention order for involuntary examination. We picked him up, took him to the ER, and we also seized his guns. The ER doctor released him about an hour later. When our admins questioned the doctor, we were basically told that we are just cops, and he is the doctor. Officially, he wrote a letter saying that he examined this man and found no signs of any mental health issues, and no sign of any form of dementia. We had exhausted all our options. The neighbors, knowing we had done everything we could, stopped reporting his behavior, instead living in fear of this man, and his family took us to court and we had to return his guns to them, who returned them to him.
Roughly nine months later, that letter from the doctor was included in a massive case file after he threatened a neighbor with a gun, fired off shots (hitting nothing), then barricaded himself in his home. Another detention order was issued, except this time he tried to murder me and five other deputies, forcing us to return fire to save our own lives. Our evidence tags were still attached to the guns he had prepositioned to use against us.
The next big issue pertinent to the discussion is psychotropic drugs and illegal drugs. I have been unable to find a mass shooter or a school shooter that was not prescribed some form of, or self-medicating with, a psychotropic drug, either a pharmaceutical or illegal variety. It is the common link that ties all of these shootings together.
I've been in law enforcement, and in the fire service, for coming up on 20 years. Along the way I've done a lot: jail officer, jail supervisor, training officer, deputy sheriff, patrol supervisor, SWAT team member, SWAT sniper, SWAT sniper team leader, SWAT trainer, armorer, firearms instructor, firefighter, fire lieutenant, emergency medical RESPONDER, EMR instructor, and on and on, with no end planned currently.
That being said, the last paragraph of another top answer holds the most weight. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, a push began to end the practice of institutionalizing the severely mentally ill. Instead of placing them in an environment in which they are safer, and society at large is safer, we started keeping the mentally ill in the community, on the premise that it was more humane.
Unfortunately, the result has been less compliance with treatment plans, self-medicating with illicit drugs and alcohol — which makes matters worse, and the public gets exposed to the homicidal outbursts that arise. Currently, it is next to impossible to have even the most extremely mentally ill people institutionalized until they have actually killed someone.
Until then, it's a revolving door of short two- or three-day to maybe a week or two stints of inpatient treatment, at the most, before release with a bottle of pills and an appointment at the local mental health office, which is overloaded with patients, or a 24-hour observation at the local ER and discharge instructions to contact the same overloaded mental health office for an appointment. Other times, the ER releases them after 15 minutes to free up the room.
Case in point: a little over a year ago, we were repeatedly dealing with a man who was showing signs of some advanced mental illness. He was seeing and hearing things that weren't there, patrolling his property with a gun (he lived in a residential area of quarter-acre lots with dozens of neighbors in all directions), threatening neighbors who he believed were spying on him and messing with him, and actually shooting at things that weren't there. He also called several times to report “burglaries,” claiming his neighbors and the government were listening to him and controlling his thoughts through his light sockets, and wanting his house swept for listening devices. We gathered up the evidence, took it to the judge, the judge found probable cause and issued a detention order for involuntary examination. We picked him up, took him to the ER, and we also seized his guns. The ER doctor released him about an hour later. When our admins questioned the doctor, we were basically told that we are just cops, and he is the doctor. Officially, he wrote a letter saying that he examined this man and found no signs of any mental health issues, and no sign of any form of dementia. We had exhausted all our options. The neighbors, knowing we had done everything we could, stopped reporting his behavior, instead living in fear of this man, and his family took us to court and we had to return his guns to them, who returned them to him.
Roughly nine months later, that letter from the doctor was included in a massive case file after he threatened a neighbor with a gun, fired off shots (hitting nothing), then barricaded himself in his home. Another detention order was issued, except this time he tried to murder me and five other deputies, forcing us to return fire to save our own lives. Our evidence tags were still attached to the guns he had prepositioned to use against us.
The next big issue pertinent to the discussion is psychotropic drugs and illegal drugs. I have been unable to find a mass shooter or a school shooter that was not prescribed some form of, or self-medicating with, a psychotropic drug, either a pharmaceutical or illegal variety. It is the common link that ties all of these shootings together.
Also interesting is the 60’s was when illicit drugs, looser morals, unplanned kids, etc. gained a lot of traction, which likely also contributed to a growing trend of mental illnesses that followed in the next decade-on.
I read that one of the "greatest" mass murders of school children and staff was in the early 20th century. Janitor locked the doors keeping the kid trapped inside and lit the place on fire (1908 Collinwood Ohio). Still, the modern school shooting as we know it today seemed to have started with Columbine. I read that Columbine showed the people that would want to do this sort of thing that it was possible and how it is done. So now, in a gun rights nation, we can expect this will be a part of life. How we combat it and protect freedom will be the challenge. Many openly say, "screw freedom" on this and other issues.
As for Kamala, I think she would be fine with either Communism of Fascism. They are 2 sides of the same coin differing only slightly in methodology. In Communism, the state takes control of everything. Obey or else. Fascism allows for a private sector, but through government regulation, they have the same sort of control.
The fellow in your video notes some say it is the flip flopping that got Kamala where she is today. I'd agree. I think she is where she is today as she will take the position her puppet masters want her to take. Fun parody video:
Monkey see monkey do, even with mass shootings.
There's a strong argument that the publicity that mass shooting generate help "popularise" them as a societally standard way of losing it. It certainly didn't help that the media started publicising every murderous crank's manifesto, so that everyone who wanted "to be a Napoleon" (as per Dostoyevky's Crime and Punishment) realised that a spectacular enough murder-suicide guaranteed attention.
There is literally nothing that Harris has said or done to give us good reason to think that she would be fine with communism or fascism.Put it this way: FDR (centre left) and Churchill (centre right) were two of the most implacable opponents of fascism and communism we could think of. But most of our modern politicians aren't advocating for anything much different from the range between those two.
Columbine wasn't the first mass shooting, nor was it even the first one to get publicity. Earliest one I can think of was in the 1970's, when Brenda Ann Spencer opened fire on an elementary school across the street from her house, killing one faculty member and wounding several other people, including students who were lucky to survive. When she was asked about her reason, she said "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day." That first sentence became the title of a song about the shooting by The Boomtown Rats, which became a bit of a minor hit.
Now, Columbine definitely took off in publicity compared to that, but I think it's partially to do with timing more than anything, simply because it was in the nascent era of the Internet, when stuff was spreading a lot more quickly.
Now, Columbine definitely took off in publicity compared to that, but I think it's partially to do with timing more than anything, simply because it was in the nascent era of the Internet, when stuff was spreading a lot more quickly.
"A completed absentee ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election. "
"The office" suggests there is an official office.
We are arguing about ways a political party has abused their authority to maintain power over the state that I live in. You talk about Washington county like it's a conspiracy, but they went to a polling place and asked election volunteers, people like my mother who volunteer a couple days a year, for information they didn't have, and then sued about it. When the state refused accomodations for elderly who couldn't vote in person in a pandemic, that's not just politics, that's my grandmother. When the teacher's union illegally funnels money into a Democratic campaign, the dues that money came from includes my cousin. This is not an arbitrary argument I decided to fight you over.
Indeed, although that line doesn't say it's a necessity for the actual voter to be the one to return it there. So the voter returns it to (for example) a drop box --> it's taken from there to the office by 8pm. Just like how postal instructions commonly say 'we should receive X by Friday', which doesn't imply the sender needs to personally trek to them.
Nothing I've said is in defence of arbitrary restrictions like those lacking accommodations or unnecessary info requests. Don't conflate the issues. Everything I'm talking about, the satellite offices and food being nearby, are perfectly reasonable measures that make it easier to vote. You are the only one here insisting that reasonable accommodations shouldn't have been made, seemingly just because Republicans didn't extend those accommodations and Democrats (occasionally) did.
Buying people food does not make voting easier, it makes it more enticing.
Measures that make it easier to vote that everyone else thinks are illegal aren't reasonable measures. Even the court that allowed it saw "that's illegal" as a reasonable interpretation, and if the statutes hadn't changed recently, they're argument for allowing it wouldn't have existed either. It was a novel thing that other counties could not reasonably do without endangering their own elections.
I don't know about that; there're quite a few people who'd find standing in line for extended periods pretty strenuous without anything to eat. But that's sort of beside the point. You're the only one here saying accommodations shouldn't have been made, so its utterly misplaced to appeal to how unfair it is that restrictions affected people you know.
If someone assumed something is illegal when it's not, then that's not the fault of the people who didn't make that mistake. It's a good reason to clarify the law. It's not a good reason to stop anyone from doing legal things.
Harris, whose father was a professor that was and taught Marxism, spoke of her commitment to "equity": equality of outcome which is an ideal of Communism. I don't think she means it though. I think elites are attracted to Communism and Fascism as they are about totalitarian control, which they find attractive.Monkey see monkey do, even with mass shootings.
There's a strong argument that the publicity that mass shooting generate help "popularise" them as a societally standard way of losing it. It certainly didn't help that the media started publicising every murderous crank's manifesto, so that everyone who wanted "to be a Napoleon" (as per Dostoyevky's Crime and Punishment) realised that a spectacular enough murder-suicide guaranteed attention.
Put it this way: FDR (centre left) and Churchill (centre right) were two of the most implacable opponents of fascism and communism we could think of. But most of our modern politicians aren't advocating for anything much different from the range between those two.
I think Kamala will be a continuation of the Biden regime. A weaponized justice system persecuting its political rivals while ignoring far worse transgressions of their own members. An FBI that colludes with social media to censor stories unfavorable to the regime. An establishment that colludes with private companies to get the disobedient fired. Forever wars in which we should not be involved and are typically lied into said involvement. Contempt for fair elections and the rule of law as they see it as an impediment to their designs. Scary stuff.
If it isn't a continuation of the Biden regime, I have no idea who she really is. I know she has been on extreme sides of a lot of topics: ie climate change hysteric AND someone that will NOT ban fracking. Kept inmates in prison past their release time to use as quasi slave labor AND helped people arrested for offenses committed advancing ANTIFA and BLM objectives. Etc.
You think it's a mistake to follow what the legislation says rather than invent legally untested new methods?
Statement from ONDCP Director Dr. Rahul Gupta on Latest Drug Overdose Death Data | ONDCP | The White House
“When President Biden and Vice President Harris took office in January 2021, the number of drug overdose deaths was increasing 31% year-over-year. Over the past four years, the Administration has taken unprecedented action to tackle this crisis head-on, and today’s data shows the largest...
Common Biden, Harris W.
First to ABC: Retired 4-star general, 200 former GOP staffers endorse Harris
Larry Ellis said anyone in the military who acted like Trump would be dismissed.
www.google.com
Its all one big conspiracy. Democrats, the department of justice, republicans, former trump employees and staffers, your little dog too! THEY'RE ALL OUT TO GET TRUMP!!! A SAINT DUN NOTHING WRONG PIZZAS! WINDMILLS SHINA!
Attachments
Nope, but it's a mistake to assume something's illegal when a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the legislation would allow it. You could say it's an understandable mistake (considering their own interpretation is also pretty reasonable) but it's certainly not the fault of those who didn't make it.
Hence the benefit of providing more clarity-- though you seem to also have a problem with them doing that, and just want the more restrictive interpretation to have been imposed, making it harder for everyone and presumably disenfranchising those who used the method in good faith.