Vote!!

[Captain Save]

I only vote for people who don't repeatedly lie in my face ... .. so that. means I can't vote.

[ua_guy]

What does smashing windows, looting stores and burning down buildings have to do with societal issues? What does marching on freeways and shutting down traffic have to do with societal issues? So thats the best way to get a message across? Anarchy and no rules?

If you think for one second that the rioting has anything to do with BLM, you're mistaken. The blm movement (which everyone agrees is legit and makes sense) is no more. Now, you have anarchists and people who want chaos running the show. Real BLM people do not burn down cities.

I don't remember a single civil issue that hasn't involved protest, disruption, or violence. Not in my understanding of history, or that I've witnessed in my lifetime. Prove me wrong?

People are protesting for BLM and specifically in the last two days, Breonna Taylor's unlawful murder. I guess the question is, what do you *want* them to do?

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Maybe but philosophically there are rather large differences between the candidates. Tax cuts versus increased taxes. I mean they both are spenders obviously but before republicans believed more self-reliance and smaller government. Less taxes = less services but that was a good thing. Less government telling people what to do. Less banking regulations. I don't agree but at the same time I can see the point.

Obamacare/ACA is exactly that. It's NOT socialized system. It's a system proposed by republicans in the 90s to Hillarycare/socialized medicine. This was supposed to make it a "free" market healthcare. People go out into the ACA market and be able to buy cheaper healthcare that is subsidized. Hasn't work. But anyone could have told you that.

[rennigade]

I don't remember a single civil issue that hasn't involved protest, disruption, or violence. Not in my understanding of history, or that I've witnessed in my lifetime. Prove me wrong?

People are protesting for BLM and specifically in the last two days, Breonna Taylor's unlawful murder. I guess the question is, what do you *want* them to do?

You're probably correct that there has never been a civil issue without destruction. That still doesnt make it right. Didnt MLK protest with large groups of people without destroying everything? Were there anarchists who destroyed everything during that time, yes, there was. Those arent the same people who peaceful protest. Do you think its ok to have one group protest lawfully and peacefully...and, have another group burn down sections of a city? No sane person would say thats ok.

As for fixing the issue, im not sure. Peaceful protests are a good start. Holding local representatives accountable is a good start. Overhauling the police force and training is a good start. I know I wouldnt want someone walking by my house and throwing molotov cocktails and rocks through my window.

And, lets be clear. There's a reason these rioting cowards have kept to the cities (tolerant areas) and havent ventured into more rural parts. No ones going to protest in the deep south. If they do, a lot of them arent going to make it back.

[ua_guy]

You're probably correct that there has never been a civil issue without destruction. That still doesnt make it right. Didnt MLK protest with large groups of people without destroying everything?

Just as there are peaceful protesters today, yes. But even during MLK's time, people rioted over racial issues. Police were murdering black people in the streets and they'd get off the hook no matter how illegal/wrong their actions were (sound familiar?) which incited more violence and rioting.

MLK was also shot and killed. Not so peaceful, was it?

Overhauling the police force and providing additional training and body cameras would be a great start. It would have been great if that started, oh, 6 years ago when President Obama proposed massive funding and reform, but it was shot down by a republican-controlled congress, and the current administration ended the program when he took office.

VOTE.

[rennigade]

Just as there are peaceful protesters today, yes. But even during MLK's time, people rioted over racial issues. Police were murdering black people in the streets and they'd get off the hook no matter how illegal/wrong their actions were (sound familiar?) which incited more violence and rioting.

MLK was also shot and killed. Not so peaceful, was it?

Overhauling the police force and providing additional training and body cameras would be a great start. It would have been great if that started, oh, 6 years ago when President Obama proposed massive funding and reform, but it was shot down by a republican-controlled congress, and the current administration ended the program when he took office.

VOTE.

Why did you only take snippets of my quote? This is what I said: Didnt MLK protest with large groups of people without destroying everything? Were there anarchists who destroyed everything during that time, yes, there was. Those arent the same people who peaceful protest.

I understand you want to make a point, but you completely diverted from peaceful protesters to rioters. Do you support the rioters who are breaking the law and destroying parts of cities?

And no, someone killing another human is not peaceful. What point were you trying to make? I agree that murdering people is not good. MLK was peaceful...the scumbag who killed him was not.

Again, do you support the rioters who are breaking the law and destroying parts of cities?

Ill give you the last word. Im a sucker for discussing political driven topics. And yes, I think both sides are out of their minds and disgusting. One team isnt better than the other. Both parties suck.

[ua_guy]

Why did you only take snippets of my quote? This is what I said: Didnt MLK protest with large groups of people without destroying everything? Were there anarchists who destroyed everything during that time, yes, there was. Those arent the same people who peaceful protest.

I understand you want to make a point, but you completely diverted from peaceful protesters to rioters. Do you support the rioters who are breaking the law and destroying parts of cities?

And no, someone killing another human is not peaceful. What point were you trying to make? I agree that murdering people is not good. MLK was peaceful...the scumbag who killed him was not.

Again, do you support the rioters who are breaking the law and destroying parts of cities?

Ill give you the last word. Im a sucker for discussing political driven topics. And yes, I think both sides are out of their minds and disgusting. One team isnt better than the other. Both parties suck.

Sure, I'll take the last word, don't mind if I do. I don't agree with violence and destruction, but I do believe in justice and equality for all. That's why I vote my opinion in every election I can.

[rennigade]

I don't agree with violence and destruction, but I do believe in justice and equality for all.

I agree 100% with that statement. For those who do not agree with that, they're part of the problem, not the solution. See, we found common ground. Sorry, I had to reply : )

[disneysteve]

I do believe in justice and equality for all.

It's really such an incredibly simple concept, and yet so incredibly difficult to actually achieve. In many ways, we're fighting the same battles today that we've been fighting for well over 100 years.

[disneysteve]

I agree 100% with that statement. For those who do not agree with that, they're part of the problem, not the solution.

Bingo. That's the problem in a nutshell. There are a lot of people, including top government officials, who don't agree that all people should be treated equally.

[james.hendrickson]

Bingo. That's the problem in a nutshell. There are a lot of people, including top government officials, who don't agree that all people should be treated equally.

At of it depends on what one means by "equal".

[disneysteve]

At of it depends on what one means by "equal".

Personally, I'd say that nobody should be discriminated against at work or in any sort of transactions based on their race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, country of origin, etc.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

At of it depends on what one means by "equal".

for starters everyone not living in a swing state is not equal. We don't get a saw in presidency. There is literally no incentive. Everything I've seen votes in blue or red states are worth .66 vote. Votes in OH and FL are worth 1.6. Sooo...not equal no matter how you cut it. yes there is a senate and house. But remember there are also states that pay more to the federal government and those who take less. Pretty much the entire top 10 "Taker" states are southern. They take in tax subsidies more than they pay and are "red". They believe that people are responsible for themselves. Versus blue states pay more in taxes and well receive less. Interesting how that works out. People who want smaller government often times aren't paying for it and taking the most.

[disneysteve]

for starters everyone not living in a swing state is not equal.

That's a whole different sort of "equal", but yes, everyone's vote should count equally. It shouldn't be dependent on where you live.

[scfr]

For those who think their vote doesn't matter and/or feel there is room for improvement to the way elections are run.

If you do a bit of a deeper dive on voting in your state, you may discover ways that your vote counts that you aren't aware of.

Here's one example from the state where I used to live, Texas. In 2016, Libertarian Party candidate for Railroad Commissioner, Mark Miller, got 5.3% of the vote. He didn't win. Didn't come close. But that vote was significant because by getting 5% or more of the vote, the Libertarian Party retained ballot access without the need for a petition drive. That means a fraction of a percentage of votes affected an entire political party for the next election cycle. That's pretty significant.

Do you follow what the Elections Committee/Commission/Whatever is doing in your state? Have you written to the committee members when a bill is up that you have an opinion on? I have.

There are groups working for change to the way elections are conducted, and you can contribute $$ to their cause if you want to. I support The Center for Election Science (advocating for approval voting). I don't think we'll see a massive change to the way Presidential Elections are conducted in my lifetime, but maybe in a few lifetimes from now, so still worth working towards. Small changes at the local level are happening. Fargo, ND has voted to implement approval voting. Saint Louis is voting on it in the coming election. Of course I care about who is elected President, but as far as long term repercussions, that Prop D vote in St Louis might be one that is looked back on generations from now as mattering. Or maybe not.