I need a conservative from Illinois to do me a big favor

Askthepizzaguy

Know the Dark Side
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
7,796
Location
Norway
I need a favor from a conservative or GOP voter living in Illinois who can vote in the senate race there.

Here's what prompts me to ask this favor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...most-cringe-worthy-debate-moment-of-the-week/

I will summarize.

Democratic Representative Tammy Duckworth is running against incumbent GOP Senator Mark Kirk.

Tammy Duckworth is an Iraq war COMBAT veteran who lost 2 limbs serving her country. Her mother is from Thailand. She was also born outside the United States, but she is a US citizen, born to a US citizen. Her father, deceased, was a US Marine whose lineage goes back to the Revolutionary war times. Not that lineage would matter or should matter, Tammy has her American credentials in my opinion merely by serving this country as a combat veteran. IMO if you were an undocumented resident and you served this nation in combat, you should be given full citizenship, period, same as if you were born here. But Tammy is a citizen and an American by parentage, if that were to matter to anyone.

From the article:

During her second general election debate with Kirk, challenger Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) spoke about her deep connection to military service. “You know, my family has served this nation in uniform going back to the Revolution. I’m a Daughter of the American Revolution,” she said. “I’ve bled for this nation. But I still want to be there in the Senate when the drums of war sound, because people are quick to sound the drums of war, and I want to be there to say, ‘This is what it costs. This is what you’re asking us to do. And if that’s the case, I’ll go. Families like mine are the ones that bleed first.”

Kirk was given a chance to respond. “I forgot that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington,” he said.

One of her parents does trace their lineage all the way back to the colonial era to serve George Washington, as it happens. Not to mention her father is also a veteran who served his country.

This is what I am asking:

I need just one (1) person who has voted for or was intending to vote for Senator Mark Kirk to please change their vote to Tammy Duckworth, as I am a US Citizen living abroad and the governor of my particular state (Florida, btw) and the party in charge of my state routinely throws out hundreds or thousands of absentee ballots and my actual official vote will not count in the general election this year. It will be discarded along with thousands of other legal votes.

I am asking you to vote for Tammy this time around, and please feel free to vote Republican everywhere else on the ballot. Vote GOP for the rest of your life, if you want. I just need you to do me this favor, because if there is going to be a Republican Senator from Illinois, it needs to be someone who will think before he speaks.

Please send me a private message if you actually intend to do this for me. I would appreciate it.

You can decline of course. Use your judgment. Just consider it.

Also note, this request could in fact factor into changing the Senate control from Republicans to Democrats.

The Republicans will still control the house and nothing will actually get done either way. But I know that's a factor in your decision and may cause you to be extremely reluctant to do so. Please do it anyway.

Tammy has already served as a combat veteran and a Representative. Even if her politics do not align with yours, I assure you, she will not screw up the country during her Senate term. Vote her out next time if you wish.

This is an almost purely symbolic gesture. I'm not asking for a movement. Just one voter to change their mind, which would allow my disenfranchised voice to be heard in some way.
 
This is a very old article, but as evidence of the way my state treats absentee ballots, one of the first things that comes up when you google "florida discards absentee ballots" is this article.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/troop.vote/

About 30 percent of overseas military votes got discarded. Florida is notorious for finding excuses for throwing out otherwise perfectly fine ballots. From either party, btw.

100% of veteran's ballots should be counted. I am not a veteran and would not claim to be. I am simply demonstrating that I have reason to believe my overseas absentee ballot will be rejected by my state, and the governor of my state is a particularly partisan and deeply unpopular non-mainstream Republican.

I have real reason to believe my vote will not count, and in addition, I have reason to believe thousands of our troops votes will not count either.

I know Illinois is not my state either. But this is the one vote I wish I could change, if I could change any vote anywhere in the United States.

Don't do it for me. Do it on behalf of combat veterans whose votes don't get counted. Put a combat veteran in the Senate, in place of someone who would question the service, patriotism, or lineage of one of America's combat veterans.
 
Note: Tammy is already heavily favored to win. She's leading by 10 points.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/illinois/

As I said, this request is more symbolic than anything. But this is very personal to me and I'm deeply offended by Mark Kirk's comment.

In spite of everything else that has happened in this bitter election cycle, nothing has made me want to slap someone more than this particular event.
 
I'm not your guy as I'm not a conservative and I've already voted for Duckworth, but as you noted, he's already going to lose. The only person at CFC who might plausibly vote for Kirk while still being convincible to vote for Duckworth is @Farm Boy. So yes, Farm Boy should vote for Duckworth, I agree.

I wonder if his impulse control was affected at all by his stroke a few years ago. If you're really interested you should look up his public statements before and after the stroke to see. I mean, basically all people have completely inappropriate thoughts like that or worse, but then screen them out. He's running as a moderate anti-Trump Republican, so that sort of statement is at odds with the persona he's trying to project.
 
I could not believe it when I heard this. I mean, this is even worse than Akin and Mourdock's understanding of female biology and women's secret desires to be raped.

It was kind of like after Trump made his comments on Judge Curiel, Kirk withdrew his support saying that those remarks were "too racist." A slip of the tongue, perhaps, but that intimates that Trump's previous remarks contained just the right amount of racism.
 
Of course there's a non-zero acceptable level of racism to most people. Of course you're not supposed to say that, because this is politics and we're supposed to treat it as a morality play.

If a candidate whose views lined up with mine exactly except that they had made a few racist statements ran against a candidate whose views were completely divergent from mine except that they had no made no known racist statements, of course I would vote for the former rather than the latter. I wouldn't like the racism, but I'd put up with it because it's a contest between imperfect people.
 
If one's lineage does not and should not matter, then one should also not attempt to capitalize on that, right?
Someone who, in 2016, calls herself "a Daughter of American Revolution" would elicit a massive eye-roll from me as well.
 
CNN.com said:
A part of the problem is that each state has its own rules for absentee voting, and those rules can change in the middle of an election season.
This is insane. How can you possibly have a functioning democracy this way?
 
If one's lineage does not and should not matter, then one should also not attempt to capitalize on that, right?
Someone who, in 2016, calls herself "a Daughter of American Revolution" would elicit a massive eye-roll from me as well.
I think "Daughter of the American Revolution" is an actual association for women decended from those that were around at that time.
 
I'm not your guy as I'm not a conservative and I've already voted for Duckworth, but as you noted, he's already going to lose. The only person at CFC who might plausibly vote for Kirk while still being convincible to vote for Duckworth is @Farm Boy. So yes, Farm Boy should vote for Duckworth, I agree.

I wonder if his impulse control was affected at all by his stroke a few years ago. If you're really interested you should look up his public statements before and after the stroke to see. I mean, basically all people have completely inappropriate thoughts like that or worse, but then screen them out. He's running as a moderate anti-Trump Republican, so that sort of statement is at odds with the persona he's trying to project.

Him and Rudy Giuliani, right?
 
They don't?
Canada's federal elections have a standardized voting system that is the same in all ten provinces and three territories. No province or territory gets to make up their own rules, for any reason.

I'm not saying people don't get disenfranchised here - people did - but it's not on a province-by-province basis (or territory, in the case of Yukon, Northwest Territories, or Nunavut).
 
Canada's federal elections have a standardized voting system that is the same in all ten provinces and three territories. No province or territory gets to make up their own rules, for any reason.

I'm not saying people don't get disenfranchised here - people did - but it's not on a province-by-province basis (or territory, in the case of Yukon, Northwest Territories, or Nunavut).
The US was the first significant country to write down its rules into a constitution that has stuck around until the present, and our system has ossified to the point where no substantial change to the constitution is possible because the bar for constitutional change is impossibly high in a polarized era. So there are a lot of stupid things that won't change until we somehow leave the current gridlock, like the electoral college, or equal Senate representation regardless of population, or the president getting to appoint Supreme Court justices that are obviously partisan and there for life, and so on and so forth. Britain on the other hand just sort of makes up the rules as they go along, and as I understand it, Canada largely did the same until 1982 and still considers the written constitution to be non-exhaustive. The result is that they're both much more flexible whenever a federal rule change clearly needs to be made.

In the US, any legislative attempt to treat federal elections as something other than 50 mostly independent systems that all cobble together a collective result in their own ways, without a constitutional amendment or a really good constitutional justification, will be stricken down as close to immediately as the SC can strike something down*. Even the Voting Rights Act was largely neutered in one of the Supreme Court's infamous 5-4 decisions in 2013. And that's not even addressing the whole problem of getting a majority in the House and a 3/5 majority in the Senate along with the President's signature to pass even a normal federal law if one of the parties really digs in, as would happen if something seriously affected one party's (read: the GOP's) ability to tilt elections in their favor as much as possible while still staying within the letter of the Constitution and the SC's interpretation thereof.

*Although getting such a bill stricken down becomes less likely with Scalia dead and a liberal replacement, because the SC is the one institution that really does just make up the rules as it goes along. They would still have to get it through scorched-earth opposition by the GOP though.
 
If one's lineage does not and should not matter, then one should also not attempt to capitalize on that, right?
Someone who, in 2016, calls herself "a Daughter of American Revolution" would elicit a massive eye-roll from me as well.

That wasn't meant to be a rhetorical flourish, she is actually a member of a service organization called the Daughters of the American Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_Revolution
 
The US was the first significant country to write down its rules into a constitution that has stuck around until the present, and our system has ossified to the point where no substantial change to the constitution is possible because the bar for constitutional change is impossibly high in a polarized era. So there are a lot of stupid things that won't change until we somehow leave the current gridlock, like the electoral college, or equal Senate representation regardless of population, or the president getting to appoint Supreme Court justices that are obviously partisan and there for life, and so on and so forth. Britain on the other hand just sort of makes up the rules as they go along, and as I understand it, Canada largely did the same until 1982 and still considers the written constitution to be non-exhaustive. The result is that they're both much more flexible whenever a federal rule change clearly needs to be made.
Back in the 1990s, the original Reform Party campaigned on the mantra of the "Triple-E Senate" - an idea that was around since the 1980s, when an election for a "Senator-in-waiting" was tacked on to the municipal elections of 1989 here in Alberta. "Triple-E" stands for "equal, elected, and effective" - and depending on the bill or committee involved, 1 out of 3 sometimes ain't bad. Our senators are appointed, and hold their jobs for life (or until age 75, whichever comes first), and the qualifications are pretty loose. I could be appointed to the Senate if I owned sufficient property in the province for which I was appointed.

Some people want elected senators, some are fine with how things are currently, and some want the Senate abolished. I'm not in favor of the latter - we need the "house of sober, second thought" - but things do need to change. It's going to take a lot of arguing, and constitutional talk, and pretty much no government has ever really had the willingness to risk their party status on this.

It's really rich, how the Reformacons complain and whine about the current goings-on, when they had nearly 10 years in power in which they could have done something... :hmm:
 
That wasn't meant to be a rhetorical flourish, she is actually a member of a service organization called the Daughters of the American Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_Revolution

It's still an attempt to capitalize on her lineage though. Since one must be descended from someone who fought in the War for Independence, bringing up membership in that organization is sort of like bragging about one's lineage. So in that sense, Yeekim is correct.

However, it's not a big deal and I think being a DAR is something one should brag about. I also find it absolutely disgusting that Republicans claim to have so much respect for the military and veterans, but then turn around and unleash such vile hatred against any combat veteran that happens to oppose them. Anyone here who is familiar with me at all knows that military and veteran issues are one of those dealbreaker issues for me, so when I see any politician disrespecting veterans, that politician immediately goes on my "I hate you" list.

I'm not in Illinois though, so I can't vote for Duckworth, but I hope she wins. We need more veterans in office.
 
If one's lineage does not and should not matter, then one should also not attempt to capitalize on that, right?
Colloquially, "does not matter" can mean "should be no obstacle" rather than literally meaning "is of no significance". In this case, Pizza Guy isn't saying that a person should not take pride in a deep-rooted American heritage, but that such heritage shouldn't be a condition of public service.

(What's more, in this case, what Duckworth is appealing to her is her membership of a military family of long standing, rather than trying to win back some Whitey Points; the claim would be essentially the same if she really was descended from a Revolutionary-era Thai-American. It's Kirk who decided to play the race card, to borrow a phrase favoured by his sort.)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom