HuffyCane said:

Seems pretty simple, you vote yes if you are in favor of disenfranchising voters and damaging political parties. You vote no if you think democracy and the 1st Amendment right of free association actually means something.

Click to expand...

I would only flip the Yes and No.

Seems pretty simple, you vote yes if you are in favor of disenfranchising voters and damaging political parties. You vote no if you think democracy and the 1st Amendment right of free association actually means something.

If you think this is a good idea, propose to people being paid full time to advocate for these changes that we adopt the alternative blanket primary system where voters can select any candidate but only the top two vote getters from the top two differing political parties advance to the general. They generally have a fit. All of their concern about voter choice and election economy comes to a grinding halt.

These initiatives are about not only depriving political parties of selecting their candidates, but also about systematically controlling debate. These initiatives are less about reducing partisan behavior and more about party supermajorities stifling debate.

If you favor this, then you favor OSU fans voting on the TU starting lineup each year.

My guess and it’s completely a guess (might be wishful thinking as well).

1). I believe tariffs will be used more as a threat than a tool. That’s not to say tariffs won’t be enacted because come will come to pass. However, the threat of tariffs will be used to attempt to even the playing field with our trading partners who impose higher tariffs on our goods than we do theirs. I also believe tarrifs will be used to “encourage” foreign companies to build manufacturing plants in the U.S. I assume there will also be a carrot for those companies who do move manufacturing to our soil.

I do not expect tariffs to significantly raise inflation. The Pubs saw what just happened in the election and will not want to repeat the same imo

2). Deportation of illegals: My hope is we will take a measured approach here in trying to clean up the massive mess created over the past four years. We have millions and millions of illegals in the country. We have done an extremely poor job of keeping track of the same. If you’re in this country illegally and you break the law you should be deported. If you’re a gang member you should be deported.

We need to get a handle on who is here and where they are. A pause in accepting immigrants until we get this situation under control would be prudent. Canada just implemented such a program. I’m against mass round ups and deportation of illegals who have a good work history.

aTUfan said:

that cheap labor force receives billions in additional compensation from the Government.

you back fill with able bodies from Government welfare.

win, win for the American Tax Payers.

Click to expand...

1. Any cheap labor force will receive billions from the government. Ask Walmart executives about it.

2. The labor market is already incredibly tight. How many people, capable of extremely strenuous physical labor, do you think aren’t working who could be?

3. Do they all live in agricultural areas? How are you going to hire that many workers before food starts rotting in fields?

4. This will drastically raise grocery prices. I thought you wanted cheap eggs?

Your entire premise sounds like Herbert Hoover "The fundamental business of the country, that is, production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis."

He said that 4 days prior to the largest stock market crash in US history,

lawpoke87 said:

By far the most common type of open primary is one where Pubs, Dems and Ind can vote in either the Dem or Pub. Which gives everyone the opportunity to vote in the primary of their choice. I took exception to your post because you made it sound like this type of primary was common when it fact it’s only being used in two states (three if you include the hybrid in Alaska). The movement does seem to have a bit of momentum but as I said the proposal was just defeated in Arizona and Nevada.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a tradition open primary like we see in most states. Not sure we’re ready for the type being proposed. Arizona and Nevada certainly weren’t. Should be put to a vote though

Click to expand...

It is the most common and I would support that too. But prefer the system being proposed.

No. It would only apply to state elections.

aTUfan said:

the longer we wait, we will lose more players to the portal.

Click to expand...

The portal doesn’t open until December 9.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

lawpoke87 said:

By far the most common type of open primary is one where Pubs, Dems and Ind can vote in either the Dem or Pub. Which gives everyone the opportunity to vote in the primary of their choice. I took exception to your post because you made it sound like this type of primary was common when it fact it’s only being used in two states (three if you include the hybrid in Alaska). The movement does seem to have a bit of momentum but as I said the proposal was just defeated in Arizona and Nevada.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a tradition open primary like we see in most states. Not sure we’re ready for the type being proposed. Arizona and Nevada certainly weren’t. Should be put to a vote though

Click to expand...

I think you should have to choose which primary you want to vote on, not be able to choose the candidate you want in BOTH primaries. That way, if you are far right wing you have to decide if it is more important to vote for your preferred candidate in the Republican primary or more important to vote on the one you don't want in office, or would take as a second choice from the Democratic side.(or vice versa) You shouldn't be able to vote on both. You can do this by changing parties before the primary, and changing parties again, before the general election. It just eliminates having to change parties at the election board twice.

drboobay said:

All but 12 states have some form of open primary. That was my point.

I strongly support this type of open primary. It is well suited to diminishing partisanship and driving politics towards the middle IMO watching Tulsa elections and our improved collaboration in local government.

Now if parties want to pay for their own caucases and pick a single preferred candidate so be it. But I do not like paying for elections in which I cannot vote.

Click to expand...

By far the most common type of open primary is one where Pubs, Dems and Ind can vote in either the Dem or Pub. Which gives everyone the opportunity to vote in the primary of their choice. I took exception to your post because you made it sound like this type of primary was common when it fact it’s only being used in two states (three if you include the hybrid in Alaska). The movement does seem to have a bit of momentum but as I said the proposal was just defeated in Arizona and Nevada.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a tradition open primary like we see in most states. Not sure we’re ready for the type being proposed. Arizona and Nevada certainly weren’t. Should be put to a vote though

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

lawpoke87 said:

That type of primary is currently being done in only three states…Cali, Oregon and Alaska (hybrid). I know Arizona and Nevada had similar ballot measures two weeks ago. Both were defeated. Please correct me if I’m wrong here. I’m not really sure how I feel about this initiative.

Click to expand...

All but 12 states have some form of open primary. That was my point.

I strongly support this type of open primary. It is well suited to diminishing partisanship and driving politics towards the middle IMO watching Tulsa elections and our improved collaboration in local government.

Now if parties want to pay for their own caucases and pick a single preferred candidate so be it. But I do not like paying for elections in which I cannot vote.

drboobay said:

Not in this case. The petition is for a single primary ballot much as done in Tulsa except that party affiliation will be shown on ballot.

Click to expand...

That type of primary is currently being done in only three states…Cali, Oregon and Alaska (hybrid). I know Arizona and Nevada had similar ballot measures two weeks ago. Both were defeated. Please correct me if I’m wrong here. I’m not really sure how I feel about this initiative.

lawpoke87 said:

I assume you’re talking about primaries which allow Dems, Pubs and Independents to vote in either the Dem or Pub primary?

Click to expand...

Not in this case. The petition is for a single primary ballot much as done in Tulsa except that party affiliation will be shown on ballot.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

TU by 11.5
ORU lost at Belmont despite a halftime lead
And Loyola Chicago beat Southern Utah by 4 in Chicago
Not an intimidating road crowd
A winnable road game if TU can finally get over the road hump

drboobay said:

Then you will vote against it. And we will see how it works out. Most states have open primaries BTW. Only 12 backwards ones don't!

Click to expand...

I assume you’re talking about primaries which allow Dems, Pubs and Independents to vote in either the Dem or Pub primary?

aTUfan said:

nope, primaries are for the parties to select their candidate for the General Election

Click to expand...

Then you will vote against it. And we will see how it works out. Most states have open primaries BTW. Only 12 backwards ones don't!

lawpoke87 said:

To be clear, I wasn’t referring to journalist intentionally publishing misleading information. I am skeptical of any information released by Russia or Ukraine.

Click to expand...

I took the comment to refer specifically to this poll, and generally to whatever was suspect. Obviously Russian & Ukranian reports will be biased towards whatever suits their needs in a time of war, and not towards the truth. I assumed that Gallup has enough of their men on the ground, collecting and supervising the collection of this information, that they felt confident enough to publish it. That's why I was questioning whom the general statements accusation was leaving as suspect., seeing as how the poll didn't seem to have a bias to suspect. If the specific doesn't meet the accusation, it lends to questioning who is suspected in the general accusation.

Gmoney4WW said:

Those gosh durned yellow journalists! Can't quite see their motive to extend the war, but to then say that more than 50% of Ukranians want it to end in relation to the US not funding it any longer. That sentiment kind of goes against their desire to extend it. You would think that wouldn't be publicized. Unless you just want to push mistrust of journalists in general.

Click to expand...

To be clear, I wasn’t referring to journalist intentionally publishing misleading information. I am skeptical of any information released by Russia or Ukraine.

HuffyCane said:

I wouldn’t believe one word about what’s published about that conflict for the next 6 months.

Click to expand...

Those gosh durned yellow journalists! Can't quite see their motive to extend the war, but to then say that more than 50% of Ukranians want it to end in relation to the US not funding it any longer. That sentiment kind of goes against their desire to extend it. You would think that wouldn't be publicized. Unless you just want to push mistrust of journalists in general.