|
|
|
|
|
|
by smt88
1912 days ago
|
|
|
People in Oklahoma are not a homogenous group. Lots of people are born in Oklahoma and would prefer to live elsewhere, but they can't afford to move (or aren't old enough yet). > Don't force other people to live how it suits you. That's exactly what I'm advocating for. "Live and let live" is something that has to actively be enforced. For example: I live in Georgia and voted by mail. There are people in other states who are trying to pass federal laws that make it harder for me to vote by mail. Another example: there are people trying to take away women's rights to reproductive care (and I'm talking about contraceptives too, not just abortion). "Live and let live" implies a passive state, but it's actually a very active state. The constant and vigorous legal activity of the ACLU is proof of that. |
|
|
Yes, obviously there are a minority of people in Oklahoma that are stifled by living there. That doesn't mean the solution to that problem is changing their laws. Orders of magnitude more money are spent to change those laws than is spent to simply help people relocate who could otherwise not afford it.
Instead of offering charity to solve a problem you're offering force (and a tyranny of the minority).
As far as mail in voting in your state goes, states have pretty much always set their own election rules. What's actually happening right now is the opposite of what you claim. The Federal government right now is trying to institute universal mail in voting and removing States' ability to set their own election laws.
To do the other things that you're talking about takes 38 out of 50 states to agree. It's a pretty high bar -- such that it's crossed fairly infrequently. And if it does so that might just be what's best for the country as a whole.
I live in New York and am fairly liberal, but this idea that we're going to make the whole country govern the same way is fucking batshit.