Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

Louisiana governor signs a bill requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public school classrooms.

 

Several groups have already vowed to sue.  On the face of it, I'm pretty sure it's straightforward they'd win, as I believe similar requirements were struck down decades ago.  

 

But with THIS Supreme Court?  Heck, we bloody KNOW it can't be a unanimous overturn...Alito, at least, will vote to uphold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Oh, please.  We all know the best outfit for him is a prison suit.

 

This is his desired outfit that he will find some way to get away from. Realistically, he should loose all business licenses,  income and be forced to live like the common person,  with his income maximum at minimum wage.  Since he is now a felon,  he legally cannot get social assistance. This means that he will have trouble making bills from anything other than wages and savings. Wonder how long they will last. Especially since part of this will be that he looses ALL presidential benefits,  especially income. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/california-supreme-court-removes-tax-measure-november-ballot-111283726
 

This is super problematic. Wow. And I’m generally a pro government revenue proponent. Deficit or no, we do not have a revenue problem in California. 

 

I don't see it.  The measure went *several* steps too far, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

I don't see it.  The measure went *several* steps too far, IMO.

The issue is that it has always been allowable in California (see Proposition 13). The current administration just reversed decades of precedent through this lawsuit, and essentially took a position that the voters do not have the ability to advance this particular proposition despite a million signatures to put it on the ballot. It raises enormous concerns about whether there is a truly independent judiciary, and the impact of super majority control on legislative processes. I may or may not have voted for it, but now I need not be bothered as the legislators need not defer to this process. This is again, not a new process or form of voter initiative, and it’s a material change from past process.

 

It is what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sufficiently versed on the ins and outs of the California constitution, but the notion that *anything* can be changed through the initiative process is problematic to me.  From the story:

 

Quote

But the court has recognized a distinction between amending the Constitution — adding something new — and revising it by altering the way government works. Voters can amend the constitution by a ballot measure, but they cannot revise it.

 

And the point that this would retroactively have rescinded taxes levied in the last couple years...that's a SERIOUS mess.

 

I'll grant, tho:  I'd absolutely vote against it, because 

a)  it's obscenely burdensome on government.  ANY tax increase has to be approved?

b)  Tyranny of the minority...60% approve is NOT enough.  

c)  This notably invalidates the legislative branch.  Not entirely, but it guts the entire branch...because now The People become the branch for taxation considerations.  This is just an invitation to demagoguery and disinformation tactics, not issue analysis...uncommon tho that might be in the current, massively polarized political environment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has never happened before, I accept you are comfortable with that particular restriction on the California voter initiative process. This was handled by a super-majority party going to a stacked court around an initiative they really dislike and permanently changing the way the voter initiative operates through this unique (in our history) judicial ruling.

 

 It’s par for the course and pretty ugly as a process. I would expect that we will see similar challenges in the future, as we have definitively had voter initiatives that modify governmental process in the past. This is in no way unique for our State, and has significant implications unless one has sufficient leverage with the Courts they can be assured of an outcome.

 

As I said, it is what it is. Others are free to feel differently, it’s another very shady process to me for a very shady administration. At this point it’s not even that surprising, I just get upset by the recurring “rules for thee but not for me” we are living with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2017 at 1:44 PM, Cancer said:

Seattle PD estimates of the attendance at the anti-Trump march here yesterday: upwards of 130,000.  

 

Unfortunately, the historical figure that reminds me most of the now president is the last Kaiser.

 

Scratch that.  Make it Idi Amin, after the syphilitic dementia kicked in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Cancer said:

Scratch that.  Make it Idi Amin, after the syphilitic dementia kicked in.

 

 

Donald, Donald, Donald J. Trump,

If you vote for him, you are a chump.

He be wishing to turn the US into a dump.

Donald, Donald, Donald J. Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other depressing news, the Economist election forecast model gives Trump a two to one advantage over Biden. They admit it isn't infallible: It still says Hillary Clinton should have had a two to one advantage over Trump in 2016. But Biden will have to do a lot more than he has to shift the odds, and every uncertainty has to break his way in the battleground states in order for Biden to win.

 

What's more, Trump used to lag behind the Biden campaign in fundraising. Since Trump's conviction, his campaign has been crushing Biden in that department. Yes, tens of millions of Americans actively want to vote for a convicted felon. (Though I dare say the billionaires mentioned upthread help, too.)

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DShomshak said:

In other depressing news, the Economist election forecast model gives Trump a two to one advantage over Biden. They admit it isn't infallible: It still says Hillary Clinton should have had a two to one advantage over Trump in 2016. But Biden will have to do a lot more than he has to shift the odds, and every uncertainty has to break his way in the battleground states in order for Biden to win.

 

What's more, Trump used to lag behind the Biden campaign in fundraising. Since Trump's conviction, his campaign has been crushing Biden in that department. Yes, tens of millions of Americans actively want to vote for a convicted felon. (Though I dare say the billionaires mentioned upthread help, too.)

 

Dean Shomshak

 

I go to one high-profile source that claims these things backed up by their data, then I go to another high-profile source which claims exactly the opposite. The Economist relies on analysis from polling data, and pollsters haven't changed their methodology in decades. They choose whatever demographic they consider "likely voters," ignoring that many recent elections have been decided by unlikely ones. Even then, they only get the fraction of their target demographic that chooses to answer their questions. Many pollsters have biases, and couch their questions in terms designed to steer the surveyed toward the answers they want. That's assuming they'll even publish data that doesn't agree with what they want.

 

You only have to look at the polling track record over the past decade, it's spotty to say the least. At this point I trust them all marginally more than reading tea leaves. My advice is to not stress too much over whichever group says so-and-so is going to wipe the floor with such-and-such, get out and vote in November, and see where the dice fall.

 

BTW in regards to fundraising, Trump did appear to get a big boost after his conviction; but keep in mind, he's still paying his lawyers attempting to appeal that verdict, not to mention all his other legal entanglements. It's unlikely the majority of that money will go to his actual campaign. Moreover, since his daughter-in-law who now runs the RNC has declared all its efforts will go to getting Donald Trump elected, none of that federal money is going to Congressional candidates. It's conceivable that he could win the Presidency, but that his party could lose the Senate and House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the absolute (IMO) WORST way to champion a putatively positive cause?

 

Disruption.

 

Climate activists seem to love this.  I've seen them try to pull stunts at an NBA game, at Wimbledon I believe, and at the Tour de France.

 

Today...it was at the Travelers golf tournament.  18th hole, the leader and chaser in the last group of the day, 1 shot difference.  They play shots into the green;  the guy in 2nd has the better shot.

 

Then some  <BLEEP>heads decide to rush the green, a couple of them throwing some kind of powder onto the green.  They were fairly quickly seized and carted off, but the tournament was delayed while the powder was removed from the green.  The tournament also went into sudden death...with the first playoff hole being the 18th...so they felt it necessary to shift the hole location.

 

The idiots have been charged with 1st degree trespass, and 1st degree criminal mischief...which is a Class D felony in Connecticut.  Up to 5 years.  Works for me.  My concerns about climate change are massive...if pessimistic as heck.  These stunts, IMO, HURT the cause.  Probably not a lot, but they portray things in a very bad light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Economist has an article about the factors they consider, how they weight polls for bias, and other such statistical necities. But it's true, other analysts are reporting rather different results, and Stephen Colbert discusses in a rather less serious manner...

 

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

What is the absolute (IMO) WORST way to champion a putatively positive cause?

 

Disruption.

 

 

I must respectfully disagree.  Disruption is how women and minorities got the right to vote, and it's how we got a 40-hour work week.  Nondisruptive protests are trivially ignored, which is why we always see calls for protestors to 'behave' by the people they're protesting against.

 

While the vandalism of Stonehenge was certainly counterproductive, disrupting a golf tournament of entitled millionaire players with fans of the target demographic gets a big thumbs up from me.  Golf courses are almost always harmful to the environment, country clubs have a long history of racism that hasn't entirely gone away, and I'm not sure golf is even a sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DShomshak said:

In other depressing news, the Economist election forecast model gives Trump a two to one advantage over Biden. They admit it isn't infallible: It still says Hillary Clinton should have had a two to one advantage over Trump in 2016. But Biden will have to do a lot more than he has to shift the odds, and every uncertainty has to break his way in the battleground states in order for Biden to win.

 

What's more, Trump used to lag behind the Biden campaign in fundraising. Since Trump's conviction, his campaign has been crushing Biden in that department. Yes, tens of millions of Americans actively want to vote for a convicted felon. (Though I dare say the billionaires mentioned upthread help, too.)

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Months away is too far to prognosticate.  However here's the thing about one to two odds, they pay off more often than people seem to realize.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...