When I see stories or advertisements on TV pushing the legalization of marijuana, the central theme for passage is raising money via a “marijuana tax” to invest in the Clark County School District. Couldn’t this be much more easily accomplished with a state lottery? That way residents and visitors to Nevada could contribute. It works in numerous other states.
Why isn’t that measure on the ballot, too?
Open your eyes
I cringe every time I read someone say there is no evidence of voter fraud. The reason there is no evidence is that no one is looking for evidence.
To look for evidence there would have to be steps such as checking IDs at the polls (which is illegal), comparing voter lists with all national and local death records (not just the Social Security death list), comparing voter names to see if they appear on rolls at more than one polling place, checking criminal records to ensure felons don’t vote, checking signatures, asking for proof of U.S. citizenship, etc. None of this is happening to any significant level because there is a lack of funding and lack of interest.
Another problem that hasn’t been checked or dealt with is people voting by absentee ballot in more than one state.
About seven years ago the vote for governor in Washington state was so close there were multiple recounts and extensive efforts to ensure only eligible voters voted. Lots of shenanigans were uncovered. Naturally, felons and non-citizens voted. But it was most interesting to hear people who voted on behalf of their dead spouses state they knew for whom their spouse would want them to vote. These are probably the same people who cash their dead spouse’s Social Security checks.
Every government program of consequence is rife with fraud. Only people with their heads in the sand would think voting is not. As Boss Tweed said decades ago, “Vote early and vote often.” It’s a common principle in corrupt politics.
Saint George, Utah
I read with interest the recent letter by David Stevenson in which he said he and a few friends get together for their coffee and discuss the theory that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had put together a plan that if Mr. Trump got to be the GOP nominee he would work to help Mrs. Clinton win. He seems to be doing a good job of it.
I think he’s deliberately saying all these outrageous things to help further their plan. I ran this idea by my husband and asked him if he thought this was possible, given all the hanky-panky in government.
And yes, when she wins he will proudly congratulate her knowing he helped her. He’s a smart cookie.
In response to Michelle Bracey’s Aug. 14 letter, “Gun rights”:
Ms. Bracey writes that “nobody is trying to take away the rights of Americans under the Second Amendment.” Then she argues that no one should be able to purchase some very popular semiautomatic rifles. This certainly looks like an effort to limit the Second Amendment and a contradiction to her opening comment. I would consider taking away part of the Second Amendment to be trying to take away the rights of Americans.
She also implies that some guns are less acceptable than others because they can shoot more than 40 rounds a minute. Nowhere in polite society is there a rule that the good guys shall be limited to firearms with 40 rounds a minute while the bad guys do not have to follow that rule.