Free Lunch

[eyexer]

The process has served this state well. You act like it can’t be removed once it’s put in place. The same process is there to remove a const amendment. Why fix something that isn’t broke. This in the US constitution that houses all our basic liberties.

 

[johnr]

The thing is the informed people, people that actually care vote. You don’t see many Democrats west the red river valley getting into the legislature. They’re trying to solve a problem that really doesn’t exist. We can “what if’s” all day long. The libtards do that all day long in regards to guns

eye you are wrong on this. Absolutely we need this measure to pass. A resounding yes from the johnr clan

 

[eyexer]

eye you are wrong on this. Absolutely we need this measure to pass. A resounding yes from the johnr clan

I very well may be. And it might just be my angst with our legislative process but I want no part in making it harder for us to slam dunk em.

 

[johnr]

The process has served this state well. You act like it can’t be removed once it’s put in place. The same process is there to remove a const amendment. Why fix something that isn’t broke. This in the US constitution that houses all our basic liberties.

Lets say Lutheran social services decides to wad up a huge Samolian base of yahoos into ND, just like happened in MN. Well these confused non Americans will not be on our side, and could quite easily eff up our neat state. Might be a poor example but you get the jist.

 

[johnr]

Also, vote no on "free" lunches, its a huge hornswoggle.

 

[ale]

#1 is a scared chicken shit measure coming from the rinos who don’t want the people having power. If their reasons for passing it is fear mongering hypotheticals like a sudden majority of scary immigrants taking over and catch phrases about us turning in to California is the best they got? No real substance just the government hoarding power. Libs in republicans clothing.

2 doesn’t solve anything either.

 

[Colt45]

#1 is a scared chicken shit measure coming from the rinos who don’t want the people having power. If their reasons for passing it is fear mongering hypotheticals like a sudden majority of scary immigrants taking over and catch phrases about us turning in to California is the best they got? No real substance just the government hoarding power. Libs in republicans clothing.

2 doesn’t solve anything either.

There is a reason why a liberal progressive Washington DC based Project Fairness is financing measure one to the tune of millions of dollars. I think I saw 3 consecutive TV ads last night watching the world series that were all vote no on measure one, paid for by Project Fairness, and all used the scare tactic that its a power grab by politicians.

Why do you suppose this group has such an interest in our state constitution and the process to change it?

 

[NDSportsman]

Yes on 1 - Should not be so easy to get our constitution amended, should require 60%.

No on 2 - Not needed as there are no kids being refused a lunch now.

 

[ale]

There is a reason why a liberal progressive Washington DC based Project Fairness is financing measure one to the tune of millions of dollars. I think I saw 3 consecutive TV ads last night watching the world series that were all vote no on measure one, paid for by Project Fairness, and all used the scare tactic that its a power grab by politicians.

Why do you suppose this group has such an interest in our state constitution and the process to change it?

All I can do is speculate that they’ll want to push abortion or some other lib stuff on us in the future in which case good luck it’s hard enough to get 50%. Do you really think our state legislators should care even less about voters?

Look at the group who is spending almost equal money supporting #1, the StrongND fund. A federal committee that claims to be local but won’t release its donor list. I’m not so scared of blue haired boogeymen that I want to give the gov more power.

 

[Eatsleeptrap]

The legislature can wreck an initiated measure whether it passes with 50%+1 vote or 60%, but it should be 60%. Look what those assholes did to the medical marijuana initiated measure back in 2016. We already had pharmacies that could have trained pharmacists on it. They could have received it on the same damn trucks that deliver medicinal cocaine and patients could have gotten it right in town. Nope. Two and a half years later you could finally get it in five spots scattered around. I think it is up to eight now, but hopefully you don't want to try it for your ailment in Ashley or Cavalier. And hopefully your hometown church run hospital let's your doctor write a prescription, but that is a whole other shit show. I wonder how many sick people it would have given some relief to in those two and a half years they screwed around with that measure?
YES then NO for me. It should take 60% to change ANY constitution including ours. I mean damn, it takes 75% of states to ratify a US constitutional amendment. Funding school lunch maybe should happen, but 100% not be a constitutional amendment to do it. It would eventually be the right thing to do because we force kids to attend until 16, but it is most certainly is not a right.
If it does pass, watch the prices from food service suppliers skyrocket.

 

[Prairie Doggin']

I've kind of gone back and forth on Measure 1, but landed on Yes. I'm ok with making it harder to change the state constitution. We never get more from changes, just have things taken away. Based on the changes I've seen in the last 15+ years, I'd be content if change became harder. And, as noted above, take a look at the bottom of the screen when the ads come on and see who is encouraging you to vote No. I can guarantee they're not looking to make any changes that I would be in favor of.

No on 2.