As far as I’ve been able to find, he never said the kids should die. Just that that’s what it would take for Gilbert to do anything about shool shootings or gun violence.
The strange thing is, in the Office, the whole joke of the scene was that Michael got a little laughter, tried to one-up it, went overboard, and everybody was like “whoa. You can’t say that. Not cool.” So then the politician did that. In writing.
Yes!
Some idiot outside the polling station shoved a No!No!No! against retention pamphlet at me when I went to vote this morning. He gleefully made some insane comment about having the courts locked up until 2030!
I snarled at him, balled up the pamphlet and tossed it on the floor as I went inside the polling station.
So happy for these results.
This battle is far from over. They’ve got a tight grip on power and they are not going to let it go easily. They’ve already shown they’re willing to use any and all tactics to maintain their control, including lying, cheating, corruption and all manner of illegal activity. This is just a first step in a lengthy struggle, I fear.
No major elections in my district. It’s all just local offices.
But I am curious to see which way Proposal One goes (this in in New York).
Here’s the background. There’s a section in the New York state constitution that prohibits developing land that’s been set aside as a natural preserve. Up in the Adirondacks (the region I grew up in) there’s a large recreational development called the Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex. It’s owned by the Olympic Regional Development Authority, which is a corporation owned by New York state.
Over the course of many years, the Mount Van Hoevenberg complex has expanded into protected land, which is illegal (and was illegal at the time it happened). This proposed amendment would retroactively legalize this development. As part of a bargain, the proposed amendment would also require the state to acquire 2500 new acres to add to the protected land to replace the 323 acres that were affected by the development.
Many groups have announced their support for Proposal One. Their argument is that the development has already happened so that land has been lost. But the amendment would add a much larger amount of land to the protected area.
I can see their point. But I feel qualms about retroactively legalizing what’s been done. If you do that, what stops further development from happening in anticipation of retroactive forgiveness? Or other illegal acts?
There’s also the factor that this illegal development was done by a state-owned entity. I’ll admit I can’t figure out who should theoretically be punished for these crimes.
In the end, I didn’t vote on Proposal One and left that portion of my ballot blank.