29 thoughts on “News/Politics 3-19-21

  1. First up, some good news. 🙂

    Now America will be slightly less uninformed. 🙂

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-hemorrhaging-viewers-trump-down-50-percent

    “CNN hemorrhaging viewers since Trump left office, down nearly 50% in key measurables

    Liberal network has lost 47% of primetime audience among the 25-to-54 demographic most important to advertisers”

    ———–

    Tater hardest hit. 🙂

    Poor Tater……

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Yikes is right.

    How’d a perv like this ever get to be a judge?

    Democrats, that’s how. Enjoy the suck!

    https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2021/03/18/yikes-drag-queen-story-hour-organizer-judge-arrested-child-porn-charges/

    “Yikes: “Drag Queen Story Hour” Organizer — And Milwaukee Judge — Arrested On Child Porn Charges”

    “Remember the Drag Queen Story Hour movement, and the debates it touched off in its focus on children? Allies hailed it as a way of promoting tolerance, while opponents suggested it looked more like a grooming movement. At least in one case, the opponents were correct. Police arrested Brett Blomme on Tuesday for possession of child pornography, not even a year after he won a seat on the state bench in Milwaukee (via the Post Millennial):

    Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Brett Blomme was arrested Tuesday on tentative charges of possession of child pornography, the state Department of Justice announced.

    Blomme, 38, was taken into custody by special agents with the state Division of Criminal Investigation “following an investigation into multiple uploads of child pornography through a Kik messaging application account in October and November 2020,” according to a statement. …

    A 44-page search warrant filed Friday by a DCI special agent said investigators found Blomme, using the name “dommasterbb,” uploaded 27 videos and images containing child pornography. Two of the files were uploaded at a Milwaukee County government building, the search warrant said.

    Who is Brett Blomme? The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel provides the dots, even if they don’t connect them all:

    Blomme was elected to the court in the spring 2020 election, defeating incumbent Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Paul Dedinsky, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

    Before being elected, Blomme was the head of the board of zoning appeals for the City of Milwaukee, appointed to the post by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, and head of the Cream City Foundation, which provides grant money to LGBTQ groups in the Milwaukee area.

    CCF certainly does that much, but they do more than just provide grant money. They also organize the city’s Drag Queen Story Hour, in which men dress in drag to read books to children. According to the website, its mission is to provide “a fun and entertaining way to educate all ages about progressive social justice & human growth and development issues through literature and reading.” Why that requires dressing in drag is anyone’s guess, but it has become something of a phenomenon over the last couple of years.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. How about no.

    https://reason.com/2021/03/18/washington-wants-to-be-able-to-draft-your-daughters-into-military-service-in-the-name-of-equity/

    “Washington Wants To Be Able To Draft Your Daughters Into Military Service, in the Name of ‘Equity’

    Here’s a better idea: Abolish the “Selective” Service.”

    “”The current disparate treatment of women unacceptably excludes women from a fundamental civic obligation and reinforces gender stereotypes about the role of women, undermining national security.”

    Go on, fancy national commission, tell this #GirlDad more!

    “After extensive deliberations, the Commission ultimately decided that all Americans, men and women, should be required to register for Selective Service and be prepared to serve in the event a draft is enacted by Congress and the President.”

    Go f-f-f-f-f-f-lush yourself.

    Last Thursday, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, a body created by Congress in 2017 to reassess the oxymoronically named Selective Service System and brainstorm ways to increase public participation in the military, at long last presented its final recommendations to the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a nearly year-old report whose official delivery was serially delayed by COVID-19 and other distractions, commissioners reacted to our newish reality of having fully integrated female combat troops by urging Congress to ungender President Jimmy Carter’s 1980 reinstatement of compulsory draft registration for 18-year-old males.

    And, because this is the world we live in now, they did so in the name of equity.

    “That women register, and perhaps be called up in the event of a draft, is a necessary prerequisite for their achieving equality as citizens, as it has been for other groups historically discriminated against in American history,” the commission concluded. “Reluctance to extend the registration requirement to women may be in part a consequence of gender stereotypes about the proper role for women and their need for special protection.”

    There is indeed a compelling moral and legal case for women and men to be treated equally under the law when it comes to military obligations. Which is why I, like The Volokh Conspiracy’s Ilya Somin and most libertarians I’m aware of, prefer the equality of no military obligations whatsoever.

    In consequentialist terms, the draft has not been used since 1973, and military capability has improved markedly since switching to an all-volunteer force. But the root argument against pre-conscription is moral: We do not truly own our own lives if the state can lay theoretical claim on them between the ages of 18 and 26. The Declaration of Independence elevated first among our unalienable rights “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” not “Death, on-call Servitude, and whatever else you can Manage in the margins.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. But hey, we’re still not as far gone as the idiots that thought this up in Canada.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/father-arrested-jailed-for-contempt-after-referring-to-his-daughter-as-she?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter

    “Father Arrested, Jailed For Contempt After Referring To His Daughter As ‘She’”

    “On Tuesday, the father of a biological girl who believes she is a boy turned himself into a Canadian court and was subsequently taken to jail after the Attorney General of British Columbia issued an arrest warrant for contempt after the father had insisted on referring to his daughter as his “daughter” and used the pronouns “she” and “her.”

    Robert Hoogland, from Surrey, British Columbia, has a 14-year-old daughter. In February 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that the girl receive testosterone injections without obtaining parental consent. “The court also declared that if either of her parents referred to her using female pronouns or addressed her by her birth name, they would be considered guilty of family violence,” The Federalist noted.

    When she was in seventh grade, the girl’s school urged the girl to see psychologist Dr. Wallace Wong, who recommended the girl should begin taking cross-sex hormones at 13. Hoogland cited his daughter’s alleged history of mental health issues and refused to give permission. Doctors at BC Children’s Hospital decided the girl should receive testosterone injections.

    Hoogland, disturbed by the possible effects of the hormone therapy, objected, but one of the doctors informed him that the girl’s consent was enough for her to begin receiving the hormones. Hoogland responded by seeking an injunction to stop the treatment, but Justice Gregory Bowdenruled in February 2019 that the girl was “exclusively entitled to consent to medical treatment for gender dysphoria,” adding, “Attempting to persuade (the girl) to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing (the girl) by his birth name; referring to (the girl) as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties; shall be considered to be family violence under s. 38 of the Family Law Act.”

    Hoogland reacted, “The government has taken over my parental rights. They’re using (the girl) like she’s a guinea pig in an experiment … Is BC Children’s Hospital going to be there in 5 years when she rejects [her male identity]? No they’re not. They don’t care. They want numbers.”

    The Federalist reported:

    The evening of Bowden’s decision, Clark granted an interview to The Federalist in which he referred to his daughter as a girl, “because she is a girl. Her DNA will not change through all these experiments that they do.” Citing this statement — among other verbal “expressions of rejection of [Maxine’s] gender identity” — the BC Supreme Court convicted Clark of “family violence” in April 2019. Judge Francesca Marzari even issued an order authorizing Clark’s arrest “without warrant” by any police officer who might catch him referring to his daughter “as a girl or with female pronouns.”

    In January 2020, Hoogland lost his legal appeal to halt the process his daughter was undergoing; the BC Court of Appeal ruled Hoogland’s comments did not constitute family violence, but “in general,” Hoogland must “acknowledge and refer to (the girl) as male,” and barred him from speaking to the media.

    Hoogland told The Federalist in February 2020, “I had a perfectly healthy child a year ago, and that perfectly healthy child has been altered and destroyed for absolutely no good reason. She can never go back to being a girl in the healthy body that she should have had. She’s going to forever have a lower voice. She’ll forever have to shave because of facial hair. She won’t be able to have children… Sometimes I just want to scream so that other parents and people will… jump in, understand what’s going on. There’s a child—and not only mine, but in my case, my child out there having her life ruined.”

    Hoogland conducted two video interviews with Canadian YouTube commentators. The first was removed, but the second, with Laura-Lynn Thompson, was not initially yanked because Thompson refused to do so. Justice Michael Tammen of the British Columbia Supreme Court ordered that Thompson’s interview be pulled. When Thompson balked, police were sent to her home.

    “The judge (Tammen) warned the dad that if there are any further breaches of the bans and court orders, the lawyers for the teen might come back to court and seek to have him cited for contempt of court and face serious consequences,” The Vancouver Sun reported.”

    ———

    The clowns are running the circus that is Canada.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Warms me heart it does…..

    And you can tell how much 538 hates it.

    Double Bonus! 🙂

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/9-of-the-10-house-republicans-who-voted-for-impeachment-already-have-primary-challengers/?ex_cid=story-twitter

    “9 Of The 10 House Republicans Who Voted For Impeachment Already Have Primary Challengers”

    ““She gave the state of Wyoming the middle finger.” “He’s a traitor.” “We want a real Republican in there.”

    These are just some of the criticisms that Republicans have lobbed at the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump after his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. The criticisms haven’t stopped there, either. Trump told attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month to “get rid of them all.” And all but one of these 10 representatives have been publicly rebuked by state or local GOP officials. In total, nine already face a primary challenger in 2022.

    But is this opposition real or … just noise? After all, we’re still a long way from the 2022 primaries, which leaves plenty of time for anger surrounding their votes to impeach Trump to fade.

    At first glance, the seriousness of the primary challengers does vary quite a bit, ranging from the very serious — that is, other elected officials, who tend to be stronger candidates — to political newcomers like a conservative activist best known for getting married in a “MAGA” dress. Yet, in most cases, these representatives should all have at least some reason to be concerned about winning renomination in 2022 — especially those who hail from more Republican-leaning districts.1

    The Republican in most danger of losing renomination, South Carolina Rep. Tom Rice, ironically has the most conservative voting record among these 10 members, too. But thanks to South Carolina election rules, he faces a tougher road to renomination than the other nine. That’s because he must capture a majority of the votes in a primary or runoff to win — whereas the others only need a plurality. There’s reason to think, too, that Republicans in South Carolina’s 7th Congressional District could be especially receptive to a Trump-motivated primary challenge, as it was Trump’s strongest district in the state’s 2016 presidential primary.

    In fact, Rice has already been censured by the South Carolina GOP and attracted two challengers, both of whom hold elected office: Horry County school board Chairman Ken Richardson and state Rep. William Bailey. (Bailey hasn’t officially announced, but he has taken a big first step in forming an exploratory committee.) Others could run, too. And if Rice does lose, he wouldn’t be the first Palmetto State House Republican in recent years to lose a primary after running afoul of conservatives: In 2018, Rep. Mark Sanford lost his primary after being critical of Trump, and in 2010, Rep. Bob Inglis got crushed in a runoff after earning the Tea Party’s ire for being too moderate.

    After Rice, the next most endangered Republican may be the most well-known name here: Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming. As a part of the House GOP’s leadership, Cheney will have a huge campaign war chest to help with her reelection bid, but Republican fury over her vote to impeach Trump runs deep: The Wyoming state GOP has censured her, as have more than half of the party’s county committees in the state, while her colleagues in D.C. even held a vote on whether to remove her from leadership.

    Anger at Cheney could keep burning, too, given her national profile and because Wyoming Republicans, long the dominant force in state politics, have grown a lot more conservative. For instance, in 2020 an influx of right-wing primary challengers defeated more moderate lawmakers in six state Senate and House districts and mounted major challenges in about a dozen other seats.2 Those campaigns were largely backed by conservative groups and Republican leaders who wanted to oust “Republicans in name only,” and the same sentiments could boost Cheney primary challengers like state Sen. Anthony Bouchard and state Rep. Chuck Gray, a pair of right-wing state legislators who have already said they’ll take on Cheney.

    Next up are Midwestern Reps. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who each have a noteworthy challenger with Trump ties: former Trump aide Max Miller will take on Gonzalez, while former Trump Commerce Department adviser Catalina Lauf is running against Kinzinger. It’s not just their votes on impeachment that make Gonzalez and Kinzinger vulnerable. According to Voteview.com, their voting records are among the least conservative of all House Republicans despite representing seats Trump carried by 14 to 16 percentage points. Kinzinger in particular has earned a reputation as a Trump critic and was one of eight Republicans to recently support expanding background checks for gun sales.

    The six remaining Republicans aren’t as vulnerable, but at least a couple of them could still run into primary danger.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This type of fraud worked so good last time, they’re taking it nationwide now.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/legalizing_election_fraud_forever.html

    “Legalizing election fraud, forever”

    “H.R. 1 is Nancy Pelosi’s signature bill, and exploring it is like taking a deep dive into political depravity. A partisan House passed it on March 3, without any Republican votes. While it’s currently before the Senate, provided the filibuster continues to exist, it’s predicted to fail. The filibuster’s continuation depends on ethical behavior by a few moderate Democrats, who are probably getting their arms twisted by Chuck Schumer, who wants it gone.

    The ludicrously named “For the People Act of 2021” is a dream for elite progressives and a nightmare for everyone else in our great country. Whether or not it fails, it can be viewed as an exposé into the caviar wishes of these liberals, who are the only ones it would serve. Its primary purpose is to prevent fair elections from ever taking place again and to create a one-party dictatorship in perpetuity.

    H.R. 1 is designed to eliminate state control of elections, which was specified in the Constitution to safeguard against exactly this type of takeover. Because there are more Republican state governments, 27 Republican governors and 30 legislatures, the only way to destroy our electoral process thoroughly is at the federal level.

    No doubt, if the bill is passed, it will be challenged in court on constitutional grounds; the problem is, we now know we have a Supreme Court whose majority is made up of liberals and cowards who would rather not make waves. We’ve seen that with Obamacare and, most recently, with the integrity of the 2020 elections being wholly disregarded by the Court.

    H.R. 1 wipes out any possibility of a clean election. Most of the provisions of the bill are meant to cause irremediable chaos in the electoral process, thereby obfuscating obvious fraud. There are nine parts to the long bill, and within each, there are multiple sections. Here are just a few “highlights”:

    Registering to vote via the internet would be legal, and you’d be automatically registered (whether you already were or not) when doing any business with a governmental entity. Election-day registration would be legalized.

    Signature verification and voter ID would be eliminated. Teens can “pre-register” when they turn 16. Without signature verification or voter ID, what this means is that they could easily be able to vote. Indeed, anyone could vote anywhere he wants, which means with no verification, as many times as he wants.

    Felons could vote the day they leave prison. Ballots would be mailed to every voter, drop-boxes for collection would be mandated, and ballot-harvesting would not only no longer be illegal, but also be encouraged.

    States would have to accept absentee ballots up to ten days after the election. This means that once people see which way the wind is blowing on the actual election day, they can then start voting in dead earnest for their candidate or cause.

    The bill outlines a new process for the District of Columbia to attain statehood, again circumventing the Constitution. It also grants the House of Representatives the authority to redistrict (gerrymander) via an appointed “independent” commission within each state, which panel is specifically taken from an “approved selection pool,” partly designated by race.

    Those are just some highlights. The entire bill is available to plow through, should you be interested.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Yes. Yes she did. And so did Wolf and Murphy.

    “Did Michigan cover up nursing home COVID deaths like New York?

    Michigan Governor Whitmer may be in the same trouble that New York Governor Cuomo is dealing with after covering up COVID deaths.”

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/03/19/covering-up-nursing-home-covid-deaths-cuomo-whitmer-column/4723259001/

    “New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo may not be the only governor who covered up the deaths of vulnerable senior citizens during the pandemic. We’re suing the state of Michigan to release information regarding Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s executive order that funneled nursing home residents hospitalized with COVID-19 back into nursing homes – information the state is hiding from the public. Michigan citizens deserve to know if Gov. Whitmer, like Gov. Cuomo, has hidden the true number of deaths resulting from her dangerous decision.

    Gov. Whitmer issued her order on April 15, 2020, following Gov. Cuomo’s similar action on March 25. It has since come to light that New York authorities, following pressure from the governor’s office, deliberately undercounted the number of patients forced back into nursing homes and the number of deaths that resulted. The patient numbers were more than 40% higher, while deaths were more than 75% higher.

    Cuomo and Whitmer’s lack of transparency
    The public had a right to know these grim facts, yet it took a five-month-long lawsuit by New York’s Empire Center for Public Policy to discover some of the most important information. Gov. Cuomo simply wasn’t transparent – and neither is the state of Michigan.

    Michigan is one of only two states where the governor is exempt from Freedom of Information laws, and the only state where that exemption is written into statute. Thanks to this exemption, the governor has no obligation to produce any records whatsoever, despite making decisions affecting the lives of every Michigander.

    Gov. Whitmer has used this veil of secrecy to act with impunity. Her office has almost single-handedly dictated the state’s COVID-19 policies, without disclosing the data she has used to make her decisions. After the Michigan Supreme Court struck down the statute Gov. Whitmer relied on for her emergency authority, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services became the vessel for COVID decision-making. Yet while that department is subject to FOIA, it has not been any more transparent. The state continues to release information about the number of cases and deaths but not the underlying records.

    This is unacceptable. The state is asking voters to simply accept it’s published data, without the chance to verify the records used to create them. The Cuomo scandal demonstrates how dangerous it is to simply trust politicians. Access to information is essential to accountability. It’s also a basic sign of respect for voters. Citizens and media outlets shouldn’t have to sue to know what their government is doing and why.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Russia gets in on the Bully Biden theme.

    Biden runs away from the challenge.

    https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/white-house-shuts-down-putin-invite-to-public-video-chat/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

    “The White House shut down a request by Russia’s Vladimir Putin to hold a public conversation – perhaps on Zoom – with President Biden, saying the commander-in-chief is “quite busy.”

    Putin went on state-TV after Biden referred to him as a “killer” in an interview Wednesday and said he was ready to hold talks with Biden on the relationship between the two countries and other regional conflicts.

    He said said he would have his foreign ministry set something up for Friday or Monday.

    But White House press secretary Jen Psaki quickly rebuffed the invitation and the tiff over the “killer” comments, saying Putin and Biden have “different perspectives on their respective countries.”

    “We are confident that we can continue to look for ways where there’s a mutual interest – mutual national interest,​”​ Psaki said. ​”​But the president is not going to hold back, clearly, when he has concerns, whether it is with words or actions.””

    ———-

    Yeah! He has a strongly worded letter on his desk in the basement he’s just waiting to mail.

    Like

  9. Yep.

    Biden the Weak should listen….

    ——-

    Like

  10. Convenient, no?

    Now That Biden Is President, Dem Rep Claims It’s Not ‘Appropriate’ For Journalists To Cover Border Facilities…

    Like

  11. He has that injured foot which may have contributed to the fall (but age clearly makes it harder to rebound and recover before actually falling); and I see he landed on his left knee ! which, I confess, causes me a sympathy pain or two.

    The pitfalls (and pratfalls) of being followed by cameras everywhere you go.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. I watched that clip of his falling. If you notice his stride is very shaky while walking towards the plane…I have noticed multiple times that he is unsteady while walking. He has that “look” in his eyes…and the confusion most of the time. I witnessed these very same things with my sweet father in law who died of Alzheimer’s. It is unfathomable to me how this man was elected…or how they got away with it. It is time for those who would make excuses for him to wake up. He is not well and this nation is regarded as weak and laughable. It is not funny…this man needs help and those who are propping him up before the public should be at the very least ashamed of themselves and yes…even prosecuted for this travesty.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. I’ve interpreted his somewhat ‘jaunty’ strides to be something he’s doing on purpose, to look more youthful, likely something that’s been practiced with his political and PR advisors. But I may be wrong.

    That said, most presidents have taken a spill or near-spill for the cameras during their terms, often on those Air Force One steps. I think Gerald Ford may hold the record for some of the more spectacular incidents. In Trump’s case, I think it was just a ramp ‘slip and slide’ in which he managed to stay upright.

    I’d say that getting behind Biden was a somewhat savvy political maneuver for the Democrats — a way to garner more mainstream voter support (due to his reputation of being among the more moderate Dems — and anyone’s more moderate than the hard left that now steers the party) while having one of their own on the harder left end of the spectrum waiting in the wings as vp.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. She would not have been elected and a lot of Dems don’t want her to be. But the Reps that allowed it were clearly not thinking clearly when they voted for Biden. Buyer beware.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Ok, I’ll be the ‘devil’s’ advocate here.

    My Catholic friend — who isn’t overly political but has been a registered Republican for I think all of her life — voted for Biden. She recoiled (literally) at Trump from 2016 on. She’s a public school teacher and was absolutely horrified by his openly mocking others, his frequent rudeness, his general egomania and what appeared to be an obsession with power, something that history shows can be a dangerous tendency that is wise to avoid in a leader.

    She studied both candidates for 2 months (and I know she did, she’s a very deep-dive kind of student when she’s looking into something).

    And yes, she voted for Biden based on her understanding (right or wrong) that he was a moderate (and still thinking/hoping the GOP would hang on to the Senate, anyway, as a check and balance). It didn’t work out so well, I’d say (but I haven’t). We talked several times about the issues at stake, but in the end it was her vote and her choice. I respect that.

    And voting is a very personal choice and I’ve never criticized someone for making what for them was a thoughtful and informed choice even when it brought them down on a side I didn’t really agree with. It’s still “their” choice, it’s ingrained in our country’s DNA. We each have a decision of conscience before us for every election.

    I chose to abstain from voting for either of the two major party candidates, the second time in a row I’ve done that. But also remember, I live in a deep blue state and our official electors will never, in my lifetime, vote anything but Democrat. My vote could be withheld without any real consequence in the election results.

    I suggested the abstention option to my friend but she is of the persuasion that one should vote for every single thing on the ballot, she’s always done that, she told me — if someone doesn’t vote for president they have no cause to criticize later (I’d disagree, but it’s a long-standing point that’s been made frequently and by many, of course).

    Like

  16. While the Europeans are finally relenting on the draft, the US wants to expand it to include females? English speaking countries generally do not have a peace time draft whereas European countries had mandatory service for males once they turned 18 and were not in school (In Poland first year university male studens were constanly studying; if they flunked they went to the army whereas the girls were partying with the older students since they didn’t have that worry). In most EU countries, the draft is finally rescinded and they have moved to the professional model the Anglosphere has always employed. Instead of adding females to “Selective Service”, they should end it.

    Like

  17. The Canadian article is interesting. There is no age of medical consent in Canada except in Quebec where its 14. In the rest of the Canada, it depends on the maturity of the patient. Thus there’s room for discretion but generally its between 12-16 depending on the person, the actual medical procedure, health care agency and the doctor. In this particular case, the article AJ cites never included anything about the mother. Looking elsewhere, I find that the mother has parental custody and has consented to the treatment. In other words, this isn’t a dispute between the state and a parent’s rights but one part of a larger custody battle. You may disagree with trans treatment at this age and I will agree its a complex subject best settled at an individual level between parents, child and doctor; not the state, however, this is not the issue here. Its a custody dispute which includes medical treatment.

    I do find it interesting that the father alleges his daughter had mental health issues yet later in the same article he claimed the girl was perfectly healthy. From my limited experience, trans children exhibit mental health issues prior to discussin gender issues.

    Like

  18. I find Ameican politics far more interesting than Canadian politics but the most bizarre thing for me is the nitty gritty rules and regulations concerning registration, voting, and districts. The disparate claims for the effects of HR 1 illustrate this; Republicans claims this will rig the vote and Democrats claims this will make gerrymandering history, voter list secure, and voting more secure.

    Gerrymandering for example is horrible, It allows politicians to choose their voters rather than vice versa. This is almost impossible in Canada (or anywhere else in the West) yet fairly common in the US. If you have rules to prevent this or at least attempt to prevent this, why not try? In Canada, federal electoral districts must follow provincial or municipal border or natural/man made borders (my district border a freeway, a lake, an escarpement and a municipal ward border).

    The last election featured century high voter participation yet within a month Republican state legislatures passed rules making it difficult to vote. It makes sense the lower the vote, the more likely the Republicans will win. Georgia, for example, repealed no excuse absentee voting — the idea you need an excuse to advance vote is bizarre.

    HR 1 apparently wants to establish a secure voter list. Again its bizarre for me that a western developed country doesn’t have a voter list. I’m automatically registered to vote because I file taxes other countries do something similar. Automatic voter registration increases turnout; why is that a bad thing?

    Finally why does every American election feature long lines? I’ve never waited any more than ten minutes to vote no matter the type of district I live in — urban or suburban, liberal or conservative or socialist — I wait a few minutes and I vote. If rules would shorten lines and allow more people to vote what’s the harm. Yet Georgia Republicans want it to make it illeagal to give water to people waiting in line. Bizarre.

    Like

  19. DJ, but did she study Harris? And I agree, everybody should be allowed their vote and not be disparaged for it. Was I being disparaging? I thought I was just saying they may not have seen the reality of president Harris. I will start capitalizing when it becomes official.
    My dad was also disgusted with Trump’s demeanor and disgusted with me for voting for him. And he is not gracious about it.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. mumsee, I don’t know but we had a few discussions about abortion and the positions the Democrats were taking, which did cause my friend some concern. I pointed out that he’d backed away from his former longstanding commitment that federal or government funding should not be spent on abortions.

    My friend also has a soft spot for immigrants and Trump’s sometimes abrasive remarks on that issue bothered her.

    As I said, she’s never been political and I suspect she’s a bit influenced now by her millennial daughters (pretty sure she voted for Obama, but we never specifically discussed it at the time).

    With Trump, she just had a very visceral reaction that I didn’t think could be overcome, no matter what the issues were. And with Biden a so-called “moderate” (and a fellow Catholic), her decision easily went his way.

    I definitely understand how people voted for Trump; but there was just a red flag for me (it isn’t, ask AJ has said, that I “didn’t like him” or “didn’t like his personality”); my concern or question was one of stability, if you will, which may not have be valid in reality, I don’t (and can’t) know for sure. But it was strong enough to cause me uncertainty as to whether he might be an unwise leader to the nation’s detriment.

    And I think much of Trump’s continued impulsive and almost teen-age behavior (many of us hoped he’d grow and mature in the role when he was elected in 2016) lost some of his earlier support.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.