11-19-2018, 07:27 PM
Well it would appear the results of the midterms of 2018 are finally in the books. Florida managed to retain their two legitimately elected officials in Ron DeSantis (Gov), and Rick Scott (Senate), but not for lack of post elective effort on the part of Democrats. If news reports can be believed, it would appear that Dems tried to steal the afore mentioned Florida elections, but pulled in their horns somewhat when the Trump Administration responded in kind. We (the US) can't afford a border wall, but I wonder how much all this late breaking election brouhaha cost the taxpayer?
Same thing in Georgia where Stacey Abrams has finally conceded to Republican Brian Kemp. But not before openly blaming her loss on voter suppression. Which we all know is totally bogus. Voting is among the easiest things to accomplish among the things in which government is involved. Maybe not easier than getting free cell phones, but easy.
The outcome in Arizona though was to me, very disappointing. It's hard to accept that the voters of Arizona would rather have a vacuous liberal like Krysten Sinema as their Senator, over her viable opponent in the person of Republican Martha McSally.
Arizona tried if you will recall, to institute voter ID laws but was rebuffed by the Supreme Court.
"In a stunning ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down an Arizona law requiring voters to present citizenship proof to register in state and federal elections.
The law clears the way to illegal alien undocumented immigrants voting in national elections without substantive means of preventing it for many states. The highest court in the land ruled 7-2 that federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” as Justice Scalia wrote. Professor Tom Caso of the Chapman University School of Law in California told the Associated Press that the decision “opened the door” to noncitizen voting.
http://www.truthandaction.org/supreme-co...elections/
It's extremely hard to get up to date figures on illegal immigration these days, but as far back as February of 2013 there were over 400 thousand illegal immigrants in Arizona. Six years later it's hard to say how many there are because for one thing, about half US border crashers come across the border at Arizona. My point: how many people might have voted in Arizona illegally is anybody's guess. IF, non-citizens of the United States were allowed to sway a race for the US Senate, that would be a hard pill to swallow.
Congress' nonsensical resistance against voter ID is a zero sum game. Any gains made by people which allow them to vote without producing identification, means the disenfranchisement of legal voters. At a one to one ratio. It's one thing for society to accept the fact that the takers are co-opted by Dems. But if one is so listless that he/she cannot character-wise, summon the wherewithal to take part in rudimentary self governance by getting an ID, then IMO, they shouldn't vote. Why? Because whether they spend their lives pushing a shopping cart around town, or if they're otherwise able bodied and mentally sound but choose to be on the take anyway, then they will protect their own interests by giving their vote to the highest bidder... every time. Unless or until the laws change, they are from the welfare standpoint, safe. Because as things stand, working folks have to by law fund a very replete US welfare system. Why would taxpayers want to rub salt in their own wounds by accepting the atrocity of voter fraud to boot? Addicts or one form or another, be that alcohol or drugs, whom cannot muster enough interest to get an ID to vote, again, shouldn't vote. How is it that someone who under normal circumstances, cannot get down to get a free ID card from the government, can manage on election day nonetheless, to get to the polling place to vote? The whole argument is completely absurd.
Same thing in Georgia where Stacey Abrams has finally conceded to Republican Brian Kemp. But not before openly blaming her loss on voter suppression. Which we all know is totally bogus. Voting is among the easiest things to accomplish among the things in which government is involved. Maybe not easier than getting free cell phones, but easy.
The outcome in Arizona though was to me, very disappointing. It's hard to accept that the voters of Arizona would rather have a vacuous liberal like Krysten Sinema as their Senator, over her viable opponent in the person of Republican Martha McSally.
Arizona tried if you will recall, to institute voter ID laws but was rebuffed by the Supreme Court.
"In a stunning ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down an Arizona law requiring voters to present citizenship proof to register in state and federal elections.
The law clears the way to illegal alien undocumented immigrants voting in national elections without substantive means of preventing it for many states. The highest court in the land ruled 7-2 that federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” as Justice Scalia wrote. Professor Tom Caso of the Chapman University School of Law in California told the Associated Press that the decision “opened the door” to noncitizen voting.
http://www.truthandaction.org/supreme-co...elections/
It's extremely hard to get up to date figures on illegal immigration these days, but as far back as February of 2013 there were over 400 thousand illegal immigrants in Arizona. Six years later it's hard to say how many there are because for one thing, about half US border crashers come across the border at Arizona. My point: how many people might have voted in Arizona illegally is anybody's guess. IF, non-citizens of the United States were allowed to sway a race for the US Senate, that would be a hard pill to swallow.
Congress' nonsensical resistance against voter ID is a zero sum game. Any gains made by people which allow them to vote without producing identification, means the disenfranchisement of legal voters. At a one to one ratio. It's one thing for society to accept the fact that the takers are co-opted by Dems. But if one is so listless that he/she cannot character-wise, summon the wherewithal to take part in rudimentary self governance by getting an ID, then IMO, they shouldn't vote. Why? Because whether they spend their lives pushing a shopping cart around town, or if they're otherwise able bodied and mentally sound but choose to be on the take anyway, then they will protect their own interests by giving their vote to the highest bidder... every time. Unless or until the laws change, they are from the welfare standpoint, safe. Because as things stand, working folks have to by law fund a very replete US welfare system. Why would taxpayers want to rub salt in their own wounds by accepting the atrocity of voter fraud to boot? Addicts or one form or another, be that alcohol or drugs, whom cannot muster enough interest to get an ID to vote, again, shouldn't vote. How is it that someone who under normal circumstances, cannot get down to get a free ID card from the government, can manage on election day nonetheless, to get to the polling place to vote? The whole argument is completely absurd.