Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: US midterm elections coverage

  1. #31
    I agree, but Scott really is as scummy as they can get. Making him governor after his fraud case, then continuing to vote for him while ignoring the damage he has done here really shows how red brain washed half this state is.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  2. #32
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/getting-ugly-fast

    Not sure whether to laugh or be aghast. The GOP really just doesn't like democracy, does it?
    Some speech writer for GW or someone is quoted saying, and I paraphrase, "If conservatives have to choose between democracy and conservatism, they aren't going to give up conservatism." I think this is what we've been seeing with the hyper-gerrymandering, Citizens United, gutting the Voting Rights Act, and all the bull shit around combating non-existent voter fraud with increasingly strict election ID rules. And then there's the blatant policy lies, the fear-mongering, their super-propaganda machine, and the demonization of the free press. No, the GOP really doesn't like democracy.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  3. #33
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,702
    They've long given up on conservatism.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  4. #34
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    They've long given up on conservatism.
    Well, with Trump, yeah. Sort of. But have they? The trade war and anti-globalist trade policy, for sure. But the tax cuts and engineered mega-deficit is clearly just the next step on their long march against social safety nets. This is really what modern conservatism boils down to, correcting the post-great-depression leftward detour, and unfettering the power of money, isn't it?

    EDIT: maybe it would be more accurate to substitute "power" for "conservatism" in that paraphrase?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  5. #35
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Well, with Trump, yeah. Sort of. But have they? The trade war and anti-globalist trade policy, for sure. But the tax cuts and engineered mega-deficit is clearly just the next step on their long march against social safety nets. This is really what modern conservatism boils down to, correcting the post-great-depression leftward detour, and unfettering the power of money, isn't it?

    EDIT: maybe it would be more accurate to substitute "power" for "conservatism" in that paraphrase?
    Conservatism = conserving traditions and institutions. Anyone who supports attacks against the judiciary and the media is no conservative. Certainly anyone who wants power to be centralized in the hands of one man is no conservative (at least not in the 21st century). Most Republican politicians and a vast majority of voters aren't conservative in any meaningful sense. For them, conservatism = agreement on a few wedge issues. That's not how ideologies work.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  6. #36
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,540
    I don't think it's right to characterise conservatism as just the reflexive defence of traditions and institutions whatever they happen to be. Like, in Soviet Russia who's the more conservative: the hardline Party member, or the old school Tsarist who wants to bring down Bolshevism and bring back the Romanovs?
    Truth serves them
    Embrace and defend her case
    Part flattery, part threats
    "For those who cling to this domination will partake in its fall"


  7. #37
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I don't think it's right to characterise conservatism as just the reflexive defence of traditions and institutions whatever they happen to be. Like, in Soviet Russia who's the more conservative: the hardline Party member, or the old school Tsarist who wants to bring down Bolshevism and bring back the Romanovs?
    There was a distinction between conservative and radical Marxists in the USSR (conservative ones were more resistant to new "experiments). In your example, the hardliner is a conservative. The tsarist is a reactionary (as is Trump, in many ways).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #38
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,540
    Small c conservative, though
    Truth serves them
    Embrace and defend her case
    Part flattery, part threats
    "For those who cling to this domination will partake in its fall"


  9. #39
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,702
    Conservatism can be about preserving different types of institutions. A conservative in an absolute monarchy is very different from one in a liberal democracy.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #40
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,203
    Here we go down another definition rabbit trail. How about this: But the tax cuts and engineered mega-deficit is clearly just the next step on their long march against social safety nets. This is really what the modern GOP boils down to, correcting the post-great-depression leftward detour, and unfettering the power of money, isn't it?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  11. #41
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,702
    I honestly don't think it's intentional. This is a party concerned primarily about a handful of issues, but mostly about getting reelected (more so than your typical political party). And it will go to any length to get elected, even if it means destroying the economy or democracy itself.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #42
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,774
    That's what those conservatives are largely forgetting: They're supposed to represent ALL of their constituents and not merely the ones who voted for them.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  13. #43
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I honestly don't think it's intentional. This is a party concerned primarily about a handful of issues, but mostly about getting reelected (more so than your typical political party). And it will go to any length to get elected, even if it means destroying the economy or democracy itself.
    I agree to both. But the mega-deficit forcing social program cuts isn't my idea. It's a plan. There are those who believe no congress can ever vote to cut medicare or social security, so they cut taxes as though the social programs were actually already cut, and try to ratchet them back in compromise votes to control the deficit. It's a strategy. I think there are those who actually believe that tax cuts pay for themselves with economic growth, and support them on those grounds. But that's fantasy.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  14. #44
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    That's what those conservatives are largely forgetting: They're supposed to represent ALL of their constituents and not merely the ones who voted for them.
    They don't even represent the majority of those that vote for them. Conservative dream-policy, if implemented, will really screw over those rural voters that put them in power.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  15. #45
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,241
    Thread about how much Republicans in Wisconsin hate democracy: https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1061384447302533120
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #46
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,702
    That's misleading. Their are presumably Republican voters in the districts where no Republican ran.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #47
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That's misleading. Their are presumably Republican voters in the districts where no Republican ran.
    No doubt, but no way to tell how many--other than to compare with results for other races in those districts (eg. governor, senator) and note that no R candidate bothered to contest those races. I was more concerned by the observations further down in that thread, re. needing 60% of all votes to be able to redistrict and re. the NC-inspired changes.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  18. #48
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,241
    Overview of overlooked election stakes: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...701330437.html

    Not sure how accurate the list is.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  19. #49
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,241
    This is kinda funny:

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  20. #50
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    This is kinda funny:

    In his defense, the state high court there issued an advisory opinion last year that the method was unconstitutional but their remit is limited to state elections.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  21. #51
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,203
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    In his defense, the state high court there issued an advisory opinion last year that the method was unconstitutional but their remit is limited to state elections.
    Is there a case for that on the federal level? Ranked choice seems like our best chance at fixing our current extremist-candidate-only primary system.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  22. #52
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Is there a case for that on the federal level? Ranked choice seems like our best chance at fixing our current extremist-candidate-only primary system.

    I don't know. I know about the advisory opinion but I haven't read it so I don't know what the reasoning is. As far as I know the issue has never been considered by even a district court, much less one that could establish precedence.
    It seems to me like it ought to be constitutional, Congress lets the states make their own rules within certain broad guidelines but I suppose I can see how an argument that it violates the "one man, one vote" rule that SCOTUS uses would go, for instance.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #53
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  24. #54
    Under the influence Wraith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,514
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I don't know. I know about the advisory opinion but I haven't read it so I don't know what the reasoning is. As far as I know the issue has never been considered by even a district court, much less one that could establish precedence.
    It seems to me like it ought to be constitutional, Congress lets the states make their own rules within certain broad guidelines but I suppose I can see how an argument that it violates the "one man, one vote" rule that SCOTUS uses would go, for instance.
    Looked it up because I couldn't figure out how it was unconstitutional and found this.

    tl;dr: It goes against the state constitution, not the federal one. Maine's constitution has specific wording that says the winner is the person to receive the most votes even if it's not the majority of the votes. By contrast, ranked choice continues to tabulate, ignoring who has the most votes, until someone receives a majority of the votes. The Republican candidate seems to actually have a pretty strong case.

    IMO, Maine needs to get their constitution amended because ranked choice is clearly better.

  25. #55
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,540
    If ranked voting is unconstitutional then you should run the election again, you don't get to just take the results from an election under one ruleset and then calculate the results under a different ruleset where you win.
    Truth serves them
    Embrace and defend her case
    Part flattery, part threats
    "For those who cling to this domination will partake in its fall"


  26. #56
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  27. #57
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Looked it up because I couldn't figure out how it was unconstitutional and found this.

    tl;dr: It goes against the state constitution, not the federal one. Maine's constitution has specific wording that says the winner is the person to receive the most votes even if it's not the majority of the votes. By contrast, ranked choice continues to tabulate, ignoring who has the most votes, until someone receives a majority of the votes. The Republican candidate seems to actually have a pretty strong case.

    IMO, Maine needs to get their constitution amended because ranked choice is clearly better.
    I can see an argument being made that it gives those who first vote for low-ranked candidates more weight, an additional "vote" when their candidate is cut compared to those who voted first for higher-ranking candidates. I don't know that I find it persuasive but I can see the logic of it. The Republican candidate doesn't have a strong case if what you're saying is correct though. Their state high court is of the opinion that it's not their jurisdiction because it's a federal election and the federal courts can't apply state law or constitutional rules, they're limited to the federal material.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #58
    Under the influence Wraith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,514
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I can see an argument being made that it gives those who first vote for low-ranked candidates more weight, an additional "vote" when their candidate is cut compared to those who voted first for higher-ranking candidates. I don't know that I find it persuasive but I can see the logic of it. The Republican candidate doesn't have a strong case if what you're saying is correct though. Their state high court is of the opinion that it's not their jurisdiction because it's a federal election and the federal courts can't apply state law or constitutional rules, they're limited to the federal material.
    Yeah, I dug into it more and it looks like their constitution only prohibits ranked choice for state positions, not federal ones. My bad.

    But now I'm back to being confused about how he has a leg to stand on here. He seems to be using the argument you gave, but I'm going to be pretty pissed off if the courts don't shut it down pretty conclusively. This better not turn out to hinge on them calling it "ranked choice voting" instead of "single transferable vote".

  29. #59
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Yeah, I dug into it more and it looks like their constitution only prohibits ranked choice for state positions, not federal ones. My bad.

    But now I'm back to being confused about how he has a leg to stand on here. He seems to be using the argument you gave, but I'm going to be pretty pissed off if the courts don't shut it down pretty conclusively. This better not turn out to hinge on them calling it "ranked choice voting" instead of "single transferable vote".
    He's claiming it violates the 14th amendment, among other things. I don't see how that's a serious argument.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #60
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...irst-state-use

    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •