Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.

Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.

Voter referendums approved

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues in the State of Michigan. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 12065
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Voter referendums approved

Unread post by TC Talks »

Putting all the opinions aside about how our State feels on certain issues, we will see the ultimate test with a vote of the people. I'm still betting that a overwhelming majority will protect abortions in our state as we are not subject to any religions particular political whims.

More important is the mail-in voting initiative. I'm surprised Republicans still fight this as it's been demonstrated in every state where mail voting is occurring, both parties gain when a broader number of people are invited to participate in the Democratic process.

It should be fun to see where people in our state side. I am betting that the right to life lobby is a desperate minority that will be disappointed mid November.
The orders mean three constitutional amendments are now on the November ballot:
■ Reproductive Freedom for All to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution. There is debate over how it affects state laws restricting abortion access, such as parental consent and the 24-hour wait period.

■ Promote the Vote 2022 would allow nine days of early voting, public funding of absentee ballot postage and continue state law allowing registered voters to cast ballots without ID if they sign an affidavit.

■ Voters for Transparency and Term Limits would set a 12-year ceiling on the time lawmakers can serve in the state Legislature and apply stricter financial disclosure rules to state elected officials, including the governor, secretary of states, attorney general and lawmakers.
AP
For Kristian Trumpers are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.
-Romans 16:18

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6904
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by Honeyman »

marsbar wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:10 pm
TC Talks wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:45 am Putting all the opinions aside about how our State feels on certain issues, we will see the ultimate test with a vote of the people. I'm still betting that a overwhelming majority will protect abortions in our state as we are not subject to any religions particular political whims.

More important is the mail-in voting initiative. I'm surprised Republicans still fight this as it's been demonstrated in every state where mail voting is occurring, both parties gain when a broader number of people are invited to participate in the Democratic process.

It should be fun to see where people in our state side. I am betting that the right to life lobby is a desperate minority that will be disappointed mid November.
The orders mean three constitutional amendments are now on the November ballot:
■ Reproductive Freedom for All to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution. There is debate over how it affects state laws restricting abortion access, such as parental consent and the 24-hour wait period.

■ Promote the Vote 2022 would allow nine days of early voting, public funding of absentee ballot postage and continue state law allowing registered voters to cast ballots without ID if they sign an affidavit.

■ Voters for Transparency and Term Limits would set a 12-year ceiling on the time lawmakers can serve in the state Legislature and apply stricter financial disclosure rules to state elected officials, including the governor, secretary of states, attorney general and lawmakers.
AP
Democrats want every vote to count.

The GOP wants every valid vote to count.
Hmmmm, where have I heard that before. Let me check the Douche Bag Repository.....BINGO!
lovinlife101 wrote: Wed Nov 04, 2020 9:20 pm One side wants every vote to count.

The other side wants every VALID vote to count.
https://mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... 65#p639851

Go away you fucking cunt! You've been banned 6 times already!
Last edited by Honeyman on Sat Sep 10, 2022 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
The censorship king from out of state.
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by bmw »

Good work, Honeyman :lol
Deleted User 15846

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by Deleted User 15846 »

These 2 referendums are vitally important. The right to a fair vote and the right for women to make there own choices. The fact that this is even a question, really makes me wonder how much The United States has really circled the proverbial drain. Goodness, I hope these 2 issues are approved.
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

■ Reproductive Freedom for All to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution. There is debate over how it affects state laws restricting abortion access, such as parental consent and the 24-hour wait period.
Yes on 3!

■ Promote the Vote 2022 would allow nine days of early voting, public funding of absentee ballot postage and continue state law allowing registered voters to cast ballots without ID if they sign an affidavit.

I understood Proposal 2 would require people bring an ID under the guise of allowing solders to vote. Going to have to read up on this one. I am sure we will hear more.
■ Voters for Transparency and Term Limits would set a 12-year ceiling on the time lawmakers can serve in the state Legislature and apply stricter financial disclosure rules to state elected officials, including the governor, secretary of states, attorney general and lawmakers.
More disclosure? Yes. Forcing new weird changes to term limits seems conspiratorial? Will vote no.
They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
MasterB
Posts: 1572
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Kalamazoo

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by MasterB »

I'm voting yes on to making abortion legal as that is a women's right to have an abortion or not as I'm for 20 weeks that isn't up until birth as I'd have a hard time voting for it and may not yes or no and just not vote for it and leave it blank. I believe that you need an ID to vote in my opinion I just don't agree with that part of prop 2 with no ID you can vote that is wrong I may have to check on it leaning no just on that part is a deal breaker for me.
Go Pistons, Let's Go Redwings.
Mike
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by Mike »

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 11:41 pmI understood Proposal 2 would require people bring an ID under the guise of allowing solders to vote. Going to have to read up on this one. I am sure we will hear more.
For "allowing soldiers to vote", it would allow ballots from those serving in the military or living overseas to be counted, as long as the ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day AND received up to no later than six days following the election.

For "requiring an ID", it would preserve the status quo, where you have to either present your ID -or- fill out the reverse side of the affidavit that you fill out whenever you go to vote at the polls on Election Day. (The "affidavit" being that small sheet of paper that is the first thing you do at the polls before you're then asked for your ID.)

Currently, Michigan election law is set by MCL Act 116 of 1954 (since amended multiple times over), whereas everything in Proposal 2 would go right into the state constitution.

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 11:41 pm
■ Voters for Transparency and Term Limits would set a 12-year ceiling on the time lawmakers can serve in the state Legislature and apply stricter financial disclosure rules to state elected officials, including the governor, secretary of states, attorney general and lawmakers.
More disclosure? Yes. Forcing new weird changes to term limits seems conspiratorial? Will vote no.
This is where I'm at. While I'm in favor of increased transparency in government financial disclosure, I'm not sold on the adjusted term limits, nor am I sold on combining the two issues together in this one proposal.
km1125
Posts: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by km1125 »

The "Right to Reproductive Freedom" amendment doesn't "guarantee" the right to abortion, nor does it completely protect the mother in that "right" through the whole process. There is clear language that allows the legislature to regulate abortion with the language "the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability". The question will still exist on when "fetal viability" starts and there's already some pretty good science about that.

It's interesting that there's no mention of the words "mother", "woman", or "female" in the whole amendment.

Maybe because no one seems to know what those word actually mean these days.

But perhaps it suggests that the amendment confers rights to the father, as current vernacular includes him as one of the "pregnant couple". It further solidifies that concept when it adds the language that the state "shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right", ensuring that the male role in the pregnancy cannot be discriminated against.
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by audiophile »

km1125 wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:34 am The "Right to Reproductive Freedom" amendment doesn't "guarantee" the right to abortion, nor does it completely protect the mother in that "right" through the whole process. There is clear language that allows the legislature to regulate abortion with the language "the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability". The question will still exist on when "fetal viability" starts and there's already some pretty good science about that.

It's interesting that there's no mention of the words "mother", "woman", or "female" in the whole amendment.

Maybe because no one seems to know what those word actually mean these days.

But perhaps it suggests that the amendment confers rights to the father, as current vernacular includes him as one of the "pregnant couple". It further solidifies that concept when it adds the language that the state "shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right", ensuring that the male role in the pregnancy cannot be discriminated against.
Lawyers ought to love that km1125. All these loopholes as the result of wokism.

The read on is that takes away all of the parents' rights of their minor children, so I believe it would also take away the males too (essentially the right goes the carrier).
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
A1B1C1D1
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 7:21 pm

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by A1B1C1D1 »

I will vote no on Proposal Three, but I believe it should be on the ballot and the majority of voters should decide the issue. Catholic hospitals in this state have already been sued for their religious beliefs and an overreaching court order could see them exit reproductive healthcare entirely. The Nuns entered American healthcare at a time when few others were willing. They are still a large provider of healthcare in this State. Mother Teresa did this same work in India, and Christopher Hitchens mocked her while sipping whisky, chain smoking, and playing the piano in his climate controlled playboy flat. Essentially his position is let them eat cake, but I'm not a racist or hater or any other such thing as I obsess to call myself being always on the right side of history. Modern Michiganians are more on the side of Hitchens than Mercy I believe.

It is also complete nonsense to believe abortion is solely a religious issue. Should a person be allowed to have a healthy part of their body removed? Could a surgeon justly refuse the request? Can insurance justly refuse to cover voluntarily removing some healthy parts and not others?

Proposal two and three are certain to pass, proposal one will be close I suspect.
User avatar
HD74
Posts: 655
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: SOMEWHERE BEHIND THE RACKS

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by HD74 »

On Proposal 3, it's being portrayed one way, but it is not about women's rights, follow who is behind this particular Proposal. It takes away any responsibility on the providers part. It appears after the smoke clears that it is totally rooted in protecting the revenue stream of the industry, removing liability of providers for any "accidents" and does nothing to actually protect any patient. My op is that this should be resoundingly defeated, and a better alternative thought up. The industry is totally playing in to the fears that have arisen since the overturn of RvW, some are going to knee jerk vote on this and we may end up far worse off.
You're never too old to learn something stupid.
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

HD74 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 1:10 pm On Proposal 3, it's being portrayed one way, but it is not about women's rights, follow who is behind this particular Proposal. It takes away any responsibility on the providers part. It appears after the smoke clears that it is totally rooted in protecting the revenue stream of the industry, removing liability of providers for any "accidents" and does nothing to actually protect any patient. My op is that this should be resoundingly defeated, and a better alternative thought up. The industry is totally playing in to the fears that have arisen since the overturn of RvW, some are going to knee jerk vote on this and we may end up far worse off.
Women don’t have the luxury of waiting. Sorry. And you are 100% wrong.

And you say this protects revenue streams while opponents are running these damn commercials saying unqualified people will be doing abortions. You assholes cannot believe both.
They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
km1125
Posts: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Voter referendums approved

Unread post by km1125 »

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:47 am Women don’t have the luxury of waiting. Sorry. And you are 100% wrong.

And you say this protects revenue streams while opponents are running these damn commercials saying unqualified people will be doing abortions. You assholes cannot believe both.
It's pretty clear in the language of the proposal:
The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an
individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes,
including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. Nor shall the state
penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or
assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with
their voluntary consent.
Doesn't say A THING about a doctor or otherwise "qualified medical person"
Post Reply