>can't >> can not
> > cannot
Coffee is one of the basic food groups.
Eat well, my fren.
Working to write an entirely new Unpopular Truths.
Yes yes yes. Make it digestable. Give the [C] a trail of breadcrumbs they can follow with each one leading to the next. Plus each section can be promoted independently on social media, providing more avenues to reach the same content.
Total rewrite. 634 words.
Burning Books One Word at a Time
These days our culture is pervaded by lies that are promoted as true. Daily, the Left introduces new distortions of language to support their latest ideology. The debasement of language is not accidental but purposeful. A insidious agenda underpins this trend.
People cannot make sound judgments without a pool of true facts to reason about. When deprived of facts, the resulting cognitive cage is no less a prison. The subversion of language could enslave our minds. Unless we are vigilant, America could be defeated not with a bang but a whimper.
Children quickly learn not to touch a hot stove, or suffer a burn. If new words were substituted, would touching the burner suddenly become safe for believers? Obviously not. Unpopular truths are facts disliked to the point of rejection. But disliking a fact does not make it any less true. Rejecting facts is a characteristic of mental illness. Liberal ideologues want to prohibit consideration of objective truths that do not fit their agenda. “Unpopular truths” are on the chopping block, to be replaced by new “politically correct” expressions.
The mainstream media parrot their globalist masters' script, while universities and businsses pander to the same ideology. They hope incessant repetition will gain acceptance for the lies, and unpopular truths will be forgotten. We are told that “men” can have menstrual periods and bear children. That censorship of conservatives by Big Tech isn't censorship, if it serves the interest of globalists. That cross-dressing or surgery changes a person's sex. That burning down a federal courthouse is a peaceful demonstration. That corrupt and demented senior Joe Biden could run the country. That Islam is a religion of peace. That victimhood is a noble and desirable condition. And many believe.
Schools, libraries, and other publicly-funded institutions boost the new dogmas. Grotesque transvestites are displayed as role models. Abhorrent sexual practices that our grandparents could never have imagined are introduced to first-graders by mandated “diversity” curricula. How can we teach our children right from wrong, when the TV mocks us for explaining that burning down public buildings and rioting are not good ways to solve problems? Should parents yield control over raising our children to cultural Marxists?
One of the most powerful neologisms is “hate speech”. This category is used to terrorize people into self-censorship. Once an idea is branded “hate speech”, those who speak it can be demonized and even prosecuted under unconstitutional laws. But “hate speech” is merely speech that others hate. Our First Amendment protects all speech: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The only exceptions are inciting acts of violence or endangering the masses with one's words.
What is at stake is only our free will, national independence, and right to personal uniqueness. We must not be coerced by “politically-correct” language bullies. We need to embrace the truth. While crying “diversity”, the globalists promote conformity. The trend to homogeneity of thought and language flouts everything that past generations of Americans fought to preserve. A free society is one in which vigorous debate flourishes, not the monoculture of ideas that the Left would compel under the insincere banner of “diversity”.
A splinter minority hopes to overrule the silent majority. And if we remain silent, they might. It is time to become vocal. Our Constitution empowers us with freedom of speech. We need to reject the lies and insist on the truth, in our private interactions and in all public discourse. We need to be loud. We need to overcome our reticence, and speak out. Truth is the only cure.
@babyfist twitter is a wonder to behold.
Visit @babyfist if you want to renew your energy and enthusiasm.
https://twitter.com/babyfist
Deep respect, Patriot.
>I still always drop mine physically at the drop location.
Same. At least that eliminates the potential for postal fuckery. Our county is heavily red, so not too worried about the county election official.
Didn't some states pass laws to give all their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winner?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/16/another-state-signs-popular-vote-bill-that-could-decide-presidential-election/
March 16, 2019 at 7:59 a.m. MDT
Colorado has joined a list of states that plan to allocate their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote.
Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed the measure into law Friday, uniting Colorado with 11 other states and the District of Columbia in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, whose members pledge to use their electoral votes on whichever candidate wins the national popular vote.
The bill will only take effect, however, if the law is passed by states representing at least 270 electoral college votes, which is the amount needed to win the presidency. With the addition of Colorado, that number now sits at 181.
Other jurisdictions that have enacted the legislation include Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California and the District of Columbia. New Mexico, whose senate approved the legislation earlier this week, could be the next state to join.
Because Republican-controlled legislatures haven’t embraced the effort, changing the electoral college delegate procedures in enough states to reach the 270 combined electoral votes needed to become president could be difficult, Reed Hundt, chairman and co-founder of Making Every Vote Count, told The Washington Post last month. The remaining states where the initiative may pass are smaller and left-leaning, he said.
Under the Constitution, states have the power to determine how they award their electoral votes in national elections. Most states have winner-take-all laws, which award all of its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes within the state. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, split their electoral votes.
Because many states are dominated either by the Democratic or Republican party, the winner of a presidential election is a foregone conclusion in those states. Also because electoral votes are reflective of the representation within the U.S. House and Senate, some states have very large electoral college contingencies, while others are much smaller. As a result, a handful of “battleground” states are where candidates often focus their attention. Still, candidates prefer to win as many states as possible and the popular vote to establish a public mandate for their agendas.
Five of the nation’s 45 presidents have taken office without winning the national popular vote, including Donald Trump. Electoral college losses can be narrow: If Sen. John F. Kerry had 60,000 additional votes in Ohio in 2004, he would have won the election, even though President George W. Bush was 3 million votes ahead in the popular vote.
Because of changes in state demographics, elections are now fought in a tiny number of swing states, Hundt told The Post. In the 2012, 2016 and 2020 elections, nearly 40 states, with about 80 percent of the country’s population, were or will be ignored by both candidates, he said.
"This is a new American demographic, which shows that the electoral system of the 18th century doesn’t work anymore,” he said. “No one at the time the Constitution was written thought that 80 percent of the population would be irrelevant.”
I should know this, but I never saw this compact before:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/one-pager_0.pdf
…"The bill has been enacted into law in 11 states possessing 165 electoral votes, including small states
(RI, VT, HI, DC), medium-sized states (MD, MA, WA), and large states (NJ, IL, NY, CA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes…."
So it's not in effect yet. I thought it was.
That's doesn't solve the issue does it?
States "can" require, but it doesn't say states "must" require…