Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lawnmower Boy]

Increasingly relevant.

[Old Man]

The reason this is voter suppression is because of the large scale effect it has on particular groups. ... This Senate system purposely put in a barrier by disenfranchising Republicans and 3rd party candidates.

That simply doesn't follow. Again, there's nothing stopping Republicans from winning the two Senate spots in the primary. There's nothing inherent in this system that discriminates against rich people or white people or evangelical people from the beginning.

[Old Man]

Good Heavens! RINOs! Whatever will we do with moderate Republicans?

 

Oh, wait, I'm using one as my avatar. Never mind.

Well, the guy in your avatar did get shot...

[Ternaugh]

Well, the guy in your avatar did get shot...

 

"It takes more than that to kill a bull moose."

[Lord Liaden]

I think that's a good cue for a political palate cleanser: a recording of a campaign speech by the late, great Theodore Roosevelt, that sounds like he could be talking about today. (Sorry for the audio -- it's a very old recording.)

 

[Badger]

You forget that the Democrats gerrymandered the whole state in order to give themselves advantage in any election. It's one of the reasons that I hate gerrymandering far more than filibustering. But what do I know. I'm just an idiot conservative that lives in a blue state so I have a chance to see the ocean or enjoy the rich national & state park resources from time to time. I could move to a red state, but none of them border the ocean. Not to mention the whole idea of finding work and having an established plan that financially covers something as expensive as moving.

 

Well, GA and SC tend to be GOP and border the ocean. (or NC which is a battleground, and my aunt actually lives next to ocean in that state).  Though you would have to move across the country.

 

I guess it is fortunate, I am not fond of the ocean, and prefer the cool mountains.

[Badger]

Today Schwarzenegger would be run out of today's GOP as a socialist libtard.

 

 

One that has withstood multiple reviews, audits, and lawsuits. And Snopes is a liberal conspiracy, right?

 

Democrats really cant talk though, they're doing a decent job alienating the blue dogs.

[Nolgroth]

Good Heavens! RINOs! Whatever will we do with moderate Republicans?

 

 

Vast difference between a moderate Republican and somebody who should probably just register as Democrat. It's a fine line, but it is there. 

[Nolgroth]

One that has withstood multiple reviews, audits, and lawsuits. And Snopes is a liberal conspiracy, right?

 

If that blog post from the Funny Pictures thread, that claims Snopes is run by a left wing couple is true, then it is not so much a conspiracy as a vehicle for that couple to express their ideology under the guise of impartiality. I suppose it sort of counts as a conspiracy but it is far from vast or overreaching.

 

As to the other, it is sometimes perfectly legal to do the wrong thing. Seems that much of the hullabaloo about our current President-Elect is for fear of that very thing. At any rate, the damage is done. The Bay Area, central coast region and Los Angeles pretty much control the state at this point. There is a reason many of the far northern counties really want to split California into two states. Until that happens or there is a sharp ideological shift, California is blue for the foreseeable future. We are looking at it from very different perspectives and I don't think either one of us is willing to budge. I will leave it as it is. 

[Old Man]

If that blog post from the Funny Pictures thread, that claims Snopes is run by a left wing couple is true,

So we are blowing off Snopes on the basis of a random post in the Funny Pics thread. Roger that.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'd say it's wise to fact check Snopes' fact checkers, because the quality has dropped in recent years, regardless of their politics.

[薔薇語]

That simply doesn't follow. Again, there's nothing stopping Republicans from winning the two Senate spots in the primary. There's nothing inherent in this system that discriminates against rich people or white people or evangelical people from the beginning.

 

You are confusing proximate and ultimate causes here. Republicans aren't creating voter ID laws to mindlessly discriminate against blacks, latinos, and other groups. They are doing it to prevent Democratic voter turnout. If even for a moment a Republican law-maker thought that they would get 60% of the black vote (as opposed to ~5%), such laws would find themselves out in the cold. And that is the real concern from the Democratic party. The proximate effect is that certain minority groups find it harder to vote but the the ultimate effect is that the Democratic party gets less votes. 

 

In California, they have created a situation that is designed to limit Republican turnout through disenfranchising them. By extremely curtailing an already limited group they have left the state without a vocal opposition during the election. You get your choice from Blue or Navy. They even eliminated the option of a "protest vote". The only protest vote allowed people is the protest of not voting at all. And guess what. We just saw the biggest "protest vote" for Senate in at least my voting lifetime for California. 

 

Democrats in California have found a way to ensure continued power, lower Republican turnout on all down ballot initiatives and somehow aren't being call out on purposeful voter disenfranchisement. 

 

Soar. 

[Nolgroth]

So we are blowing off Snopes on the basis of a random post in the Funny Pics thread. Roger that.

 

Well that was smug and condescending. I did say "if" and that implies that I have not embraced that viewpoint. But thank you. You have given me some much needed clarity.

[megaplayboy]

Well, we can have our own opinions, but we can't have our own facts. If we can't even agree about what the facts are, then we're hopelessly screwed. I've had conservatives I've disagreed with question the impartiality of every fact-checking body wrt evaluating statements by the President-Elect during the campaign. But once you've discounted the 3 political fact-checking sites, snopes, and Wikipedia...what's left? At some point you just have to accept that there are facts which are inconvenient to your point, or worldview, or what have you.

[TheDarkness]

Well that was smug and condescending. I did say "if" and that implies that I have not embraced that viewpoint. But thank you. You have given me some much needed clarity.

Hope this helps. As far as the snopes end of the convo.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

[Ternaugh]

Vast difference between a moderate Republican and somebody who should probably just register as Democrat. It's a fine line, but it is there. 

 

RINO is essentially a purity test label to say that traditional members of the Republican Party "aren't one of us". Political parties aren't a social contract for its members; I don't have to believe in everything to belong, nor do I have to support every candidate blindly. Not socially conservative enough? Well, too bad! There's over a century of Progressive tradition tied to the Republican Party, and some supporters remember that. Maybe, we've got it wrong. Maybe, RINO is actually a bit of psychological projection from those who have strayed from the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ike.

[TheDarkness]

RINO is essentially a purity test label to say that traditional members of the Republican Party "aren't one of us". Political parties aren't a social contract for its members; I don't have to believe in everything to belong, nor do I have to support every candidate blindly. Not socially conservative enough? Well, too bad! There's over a century of Progressive tradition tied to the Republican Party, and some supporters remember that. Maybe, we've got it wrong. Maybe, RINO is actually a bit of psychological projection from those who have strayed from the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ike.

Further, when there are only two viable parties in elections, should anyone really want EITHER to be overly defined to the point of excluding a broader range of views?

[TheDarkness]

From the rational wiki entry for Reason magazine, a libertarian ezine(and, for the record, I know some libertarians whose views I find interesting,, this is just something I found funny):

 

"The first thing one is confronted by when clicking a link to Reason is reason.com asking you to donate money to them. In true libertarian spirit you should ignore their requests to artificially prop up an unprofitable business and not donate a single cent."

[Sociotard]

In California, they have created a situation that is designed to limit Republican turnout through disenfranchising them. By extremely curtailing an already limited group they have left the state without a vocal opposition during the election. You get your choice from Blue or Navy. They even eliminated the option of a "protest vote". The only protest vote allowed people is the protest of not voting at all. And guess what. We just saw the biggest "protest vote" for Senate in at least my voting lifetime for California. 

Exactly. You get a real choice between blue and navy. Not a mere protest vote. Not a shout out into an uncaring void. A real, genuine choice.  Before, you could vote for a republican, but the odds were very bad. Now they can vote for the less liberal of the two candidates, and have a good chance of getting a moderate. Not a real conservative, because they never had that chance. But the chance to be pragmatic enough to say, at least we got a moderate.

 

I will concede that Californian votes are down, even compared with the rest of the country.  I will consider on the possibility that it may amount to voter suppression.

[Cassandra]

2016 was a repeat of the 1920 Election.

 

You had a two term Democrat leaving office.  (Woodrow Wilson/Barack Obama)

 

You had both the Republican and Democrat from the same state.  (Ohio/New York)

 

You had a Relative of a President on the Ticket.  (Hillary Clinton, Wife of Bill Clinton for President/Franklin Roosevelt, Cousin of Theodore Roosevelt [and married to his niece Eleanor] as Vice President)

 

And you had the least likely person to be elected President win.  (Senator Warren G. Harding who got the nomination because the convention deadlocked and he "looked like a President"/Donald Trump, enough said)

 

Harding and Trump are opposites in attitude regarding the Presidency.  Harding freely admitted he didn't know what he was doing.  As for Trump, again enough said.

[薔薇語]

Exactly. You get a real choice between blue and navy. Not a mere protest vote.

But here is the rub: you already had that chance. It is no secret that the Democratic party is the hands down favorite to win the Senate race. I think you would be hard pressed to find any non-Democrat who thinks they have a chance of actually winning. Why this matters is because those same people (non-Democratic voters) already had the chance to intercede in the Democratic Primary and choose a more moderate Democrat. But, to the best of my knowledge, we weren't seeing that. Why? Because ultimately the people who vote in the Primary are the most partisan of voters and Independents tend to not show up. This year we had absolute record breaking turnout in the primary with 7.5 million voters. But this was likely more due to the Sec. Clinton & Senator Sanders race still being undecided. Not because Independents or Republicans being especially interested. We can see this because the Democratic candidates skyrocketed in votes (top two under this system previously had 2.8m or 62% vs this years 4.4 or 58%).

 

 

I will concede that Californian votes are down, even compared with the rest of the country. I will consider on the possibility that it may amount to voter suppression.

Ultimately it doesn't actually give additional choices to the electorate that it didn't already have; people have had always been free to vote in the Democratic primary to swing them more moderate. By pushing off what is essentially the Democratic Primary to the general race, they ensure that no protest vote is an option and thus no protest vote has a chance in hell of winning.**

 

 

This of course has downballot effects. By not giving people a choice for the Senate race, already feeling disenfranchised by the foregone national race conclusion, some people (re: republicans) just aren't going to show up and vote on down ballot initiatives. It is the starting point in sending every level of government further Democratic.

 

 

**I failed to make this as clear as it deserves. If you have an very popular person running on the ticket at a high news worthy level, you get down-ballot effects. For example, President Obama was a much more popular person than normal. This drove people to the polls. This year neither side had a President Obama-liks figure. But even if the main presidential candidate is uninspired a charismatic Senate candidate can still drum up support. In every other state each party has essentially two to three chances for such a person to emerge: Pres, Senate, and Gov. The Democrats in California have engineered a system wherein they get 3 (1 pres and 2 senate) and Republicans get 1 (Pres). Even in off years, Dems get 3 (2 senate and one gov) and Republicans get just 1 (gov). This means all republican hopes of inspiring people are placed in a single easily broken basket.

 

 

Soar.

 

Edit - I think it should be noted that there is an exception to the ballot lock out - moderately popular incumbents. It is probably unlikely that an incumbent will face a strong inner-party opponent. Thus the second party candidates actually do have a chance of getting on. But incumbents are even harder to dethrown than a simple party favored first-timer. 2012 had this kind of race. 

[megaplayboy]

Trump is going to nominate Alabama Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to become the next Attorney General. I assume the entire civil rights division of the DOJ is going to resign en masse.

 

But hey, that corrupt Hillary Clinton, amirite?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Trump is going to nominate Alabama Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to become the next Attorney General. I assume the entire civil rights division of the DOJ is going to resign en masse.

 

But hey, that corrupt Hillary Clinton, amirite?

. . . A 70-year-old is in charge of forcefully redirecting the Justice Department in new directions.

 

A dumb 70-year-old. This should go well!

[Lord Liaden]

I remember when Obama was announcing his cabinet choices back in 2008. Even his political opponents acknowledged these were capable, qualified people. (Even Hillary Clinton for State, believe it or not.)

 

The Trump team keeps getting scarier and scarier.

[薔薇語]

Some Perspective:

 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/election-hate-crimes-hoaxes-hyperbole

 

Soar.