Straw man. You ignored my second condition. You also didn't answer mine and Gary's question.

I really don't expect an answer, it is abundantly clear that voter ID does nothing to solve fraud for mail/absentee balloting.

Voting should be as easy as possible, and no system can be completely fraud free.  Americans are amazingly honest when it comes to voting.  Why fix a problem that does not exist?

Not Clinton, not Trump, probably Johnson. I'm not much for voting for one terrible candidate to keep another possibly more terrible candidate out of the white house. I'd rather vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm starting to warm to that idea.

Personally, I don't believe electing either Hillary or Trump will be the major disaster some claim it will be.  The House will remain under Republican control, the Senate will remain somewhat equally divided.  Gridlock will continue on major policy items, but the basic necessities of government will continue.  Yes, we have quite a few major problems out there that should be addressed, but my feeling is that neither candidate is the one that will truly fix them.

The reason that most people won't vote third party is the historical fact that none have ever garnered significant support, so people tend to write them off as un-electible - whether they are qualified or not.  Maybe it is time that we voters show the two major parties that a third party is viable and they (the Democrats & Republicans) ought to consider that fact and start thinking about the problems that us "common folk" see everyday.  Both parties need to get past the "not invented here - therefore I'm against it" and move on to actually solve problems.

Well, conservatives could prevent that by supporting, and voting for Trump.

They could also soften the effect by getting on board to confirm Merrick Garland, who by all accounts is a middle of the road, open-minded and qualified candidate to the Supreme Court.  Judge Garland is likely to be far less liberal than anyone Hillary is likely to nominate.  But, then again, the message I heard was "let the next President decide".

My little one-horse town is holding a special election!  Set up in late May, the election is set to take place during the first week of August.  The Republican backers of the initiative want to change the city council of the Steinholme Metropolis from 7 at-large members to a ward system, with something on the order of 25 members.  Looking forward to voting this trash DOWN.

How big is your town?  Any rationale for a change like this?  If you are really a one-horse town, the logic escapes me on why you would need a 25 member governing board.

Gary

Don't believe we have yet hit our peak.  I might change my mind when we have to build walls to keep people in.

Gary

I believe Mr. Beck is correct.


“I think people think that I’m nuts,” Beck also said.

Gary

Do find it rather ironic that many on the right have stated that they want the President to follow his responsibilities stated in the Constitution - except - in this situation of nominating a candidate for the SCOTUS.  Did hear Mr. McConnell mention something along the lines that the President should not propose a nominee and that the American people need to be involved in this decision.  Pretty weak argument since I believe the President and all the members of the Senate were indeed duly elected by the American people to make just these kinds of decisions.

It is absolutely clear that the President has the responsibility and ability to nominate a person for the SCOTUS.  I believe he could even do a recess appointment, although I not so sure if the timing is there.  The Senate can do what it pleases with the nomination, delay/defer, deny or approve.  That is completely within the Senate’s control.

So why would the leadership of the Senate urge the President to shirk his Constitutional responsibilities?  Is there a lack of qualified candidates?  Perhaps there isn’t enough time for the Senate to thoughtfully execute it’s own responsibilities in the process?  Is the Senate content with having an undermanned SCOTUS operate for more than a year, considering many of the important cases pending?  Believe that any logical and informed person would have to say no to all of these questions.  The only plausible reason remaining is ideology.  Do find it very intriguing that the majority leadership of Senate wishes to make it’s decisions based on ideology and not fact or reason.

This is a no lose scenario for the President.  By proposing a qualified nominee, the President can either have the nominee confirmed -or- we will have a situation unfold, for the whole county to see, just how the current Senate does it’s business.  Should the Senate decide to just ignore the Presidents nomination, the Democrats will have a golden opportunity to use that in the upcoming elections, I fear that will not play well for the Republicans.  Should the Senate decide to actually hold hearings on the nominee and drag it out for many months, a similar situation exists.  The Democrats will hammer on the qualifications and experience of the nominee, the Republicans will have, IMHO, a difficult time refuting this.  Again, it boils down to the fact that the Senate Republican leadership will be left with trying to justify a decision based on ideology, a difficult position to explain to the American public.

Of course the President could go totally off the reservation and do a recess appointment and nominate Ted Cruz - THAT would be interesting to watch.


Gary