Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bill Katz's avatar

I once proposed a program in CT to the manager of our now governor Ned Lamont who was running against Joe Lieberman who was a Republican supporter but running independently. I proposed all supporters of Lamont find just one person who might be open minded enough and talk to them over the summer. I find a friend who was a likely democratic voter but who probably wouldn’t vote. The manager dismissed my idea and his candidate lost. I made sure my friend voted on Election Day. I called her on that day to offer her a ride but she told me she had voted. I did my job. I proposed this in letter form to Barris campaign. Great chance of that being used. But potentially, it brings double the number to vote.

Expand full comment
Ronald L. Hoover, Ph.D.'s avatar

With the Supreme Court as the ultimate decider of anything about the upcoming election, I would argue the voting/election process is at HUGE risk. That 6 individuals could overthrow the votes of millions of people, simply because THOSE SIX don't like the outcome is hardly a supportive argument for election security. They have already demonstrated loyalty to one candidate, blocking the course of felony prosecution and judgement against him, to aid him in securing the White House. Why should the final outcome be in their demonstrably dirty, partisan hands? Of those six with a history of partisan decisions, Trump appointed 3. We saw what happened in Florida with the classified documents case--Trump's undisputable criminal intent and behavior documented by the FBI, and a Trump appointed judge who dismissed the case as a thank you gift for her unsupported, undeserved, meritless judicial appointment.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts