Fetterman’s Debate Performance Proves Early Voting Should Be Banned Completely

Thats cool but thats what were discussing on this thread. Early voting.
Ok. I see your point. Now let’s discuss the problems:

1. If you vote before a revealing debate proves that a particular candidate (like Fetterman) is clearly too mentally compromised to even do the job, you may find that you have voted for a brain-damaged moron.

2. As my brother (or sister?), jc456, keeps pointing out, it would be good to see (in each respective State) whether that State’s LEGISLATURE has authorized “early voting.” For, if they haven’t, then whether or not a good ground can be made-out for “early voting,” it is unlawful.
 
Last edited:
In Georgia they are very strict about voter registration and you have to request an absentee ballot every election cycle. Like Trump I vote by mail.
Cool. And to the extent that the various voting districts and officials comply with the law and the Constitution, have a blast.
 
Ok. I see your point. Now let’s discuss the problems:

1. If you vote before a revealing debate proves that a particular candidate (like Fetterman) is clearly to lo mentally compromised to even do the job, you may find that you have votes for a brain-damaged moron.

2. As my brother (or sister?), jc456, keeps pointing out, it would be good to see (in each respective State) whether that State’s LEGISLATURE has authorized “early voting.” For, if they haven’t, then whether or not a good ground can be made-out for “early voting,” it is unlawful.

I thought Fetterman was struggling a bit, but even post stroke he was sharper than Dr Oz.. Oz is another TV quasi expert.. Have you ever watched his TV show?
 
I thought Fetterman was struggling a bit, but even post stroke he was sharper than Dr Oz.. Oz is another TV quasi expert.. Have you ever watched his TV show?
Nonsense.

But even if your perception were rational, you at least NOW have the info from the debate to support your choice and vote. By contrast, if you voted before the fucking debate, you didn’t have that information.
 
Ok now we're on the same page. A debate is only one aspect of a campaign, and frankly its the poorest sound bite portion. I look at a candidate's positions and previous history. I watch debates for entertainment.
Ok. But if you vote early, you don’t have even the ability to change your mind if you subsequently recognize that your candidate is truly brain-damaged. If that’s the case, his prior positions don’t mean much. Sort of like how Fetterman’s “position” on fracking is both firmly against it and fully supportive of it. 🙄
This is true. But thats the subject for litigation is not enacted.
Sort of true. But also sort of false. Here’s why: I shouldn’t have to engage in the laborious and expensive process of litigation to compel state officials to comply with the law and the Constitution.

Let’s get right down to it: THEY should be very well aware of the Constitutional provision And THEY should be complying with that provision every damn step of the way. The Constitution, not their whim, is the supreme law of the land. And public officials swear oaths to comply with the Constitution.

It’s not a trivial thing. We should be able to rely on it.
 
Off topic:

Credit where credit is due.

Zinc is both a participant in this discussion and a moderator. But he hasn’t allowed his mod position to interfere with his part in discussing the topic of the thread.

Even when he perceived that some of my earlier contributions were (shall we say) a bit “off topic,” what did he do and what did he not do? He tried to refocus my posts to aline more with the OP. Fair enough. But he also didn’t just delete the posts. He engaged in the discussion more as a participant than as a mod.

I appreciate the distinction and his ability to distinguish between the two roles.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top