Moderator: CameronBornAndBred
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7KzHonored to have Marjorie’s endorsement. We’re going to win this thing and take the country back from the scumbags.
I am hoping that in the Ohio race and some others that the Republicans will all be tripping over each other to see who can go furthest to the right to kiss the ring of Trump. If the furthest right candidates win, that could open the door for moderate Democrats to have a chance. Tim Ryan is running for the Ohio Senate seat - I vaguely recall his few minutes in the last presidential campaign and actually thinking he was a pretty good, centrist candidate who could appeal to working class voters. He just didn't have enough polish or name recognition to get anywhere in the presidential race, but hopefully he can do better in Ohio.dudog wrote: ↑January 25th, 2022, 7:04 pmWow. Guess I'm a "scumbag".
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7KzHonored to have Marjorie’s endorsement. We’re going to win this thing and take the country back from the scumbags.
This is what the discourse, political and otherwise, has come to in this country. Thank you Dear Leader.
Gawd. I saw a replay of some of that hearing yesterday. Just ridiculous. What have we come to? Why does the electorate not want to enforce a standard of behavior in their officials? Most people wouldn't accept that kind of evasion from their 3-year-old.dudog wrote: ↑January 28th, 2022, 12:15 pmI don't want anyone saying their state is the most screwed up. That distinction goes to Florida. Confirmation hearings are now ongoing for Mini-Me's choice for Surgeon General, and the proposed top health officer in the state refuses to say vaccines work. Not just COVID, the question was put to him later in a generic way.
These people have made it their sole mission in life to be contrarian to Democrats. Soon they might start arguing that the sun rises in the west and that gravity is fake. And people will go along with them. They are not for anything - they are just against something. A very tiny part of me gets this for those who have absolutely nothing and the system doesn't work for them - it is still nuts, but as they say, if you ain't got nothing, you ain't got nothing to lose. But for all of these power hungry politicians who will sacrifice their morals and rational thinking to cater to these people, they are really the worst of the worst.ArkieDukie wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 6:58 amMO is crazy too. Here, our Attorney General sues any city, county or school district that tries to institute a mask mandate. He has even said that public health departments do not have the authority to do that, only he does. If you guessed that he is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Roy Blunt, you may step to the head of the class. Oh, and our Governor got caught burying a report that proved the effectiveness of said mandates.
I read in an article yesterday that several (Republican) state legislatures have passed laws making it illegal for state medical boards to discipline doctors who prescribe hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin for Covid. Because republican legislators know so much more about medicine than the CDC, NIH and FDA do, with all the time that has been spent studying the effectiveness of HCQ and ivermectin (no convincing evidence either way). This seems like an incredibly slippery slope to me. Would be very interested in hearing what others think.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7KzArizona Republicans have introduced a bill that would impose significant new voting restrictions and allow the state legislature to reject election results.
The measure would require the state legislature to convene after primary and general elections to review the ballot counting process and “shall accept or reject the election results”.
The proposal does not require lawmakers to find evidence of fraud or lay out any factors they would have to consider in order to overturn an election.
I am confident that any law purporting to allow the legislature to overturn an election, without any criteria, would be found facially unconstitutional.dudog wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 11:29 amOk, Arizona is trying. But since it's only proposed and not official (like Florida's Surgeon General) I say Florida still has the edge. At the moment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7KzArizona Republicans have introduced a bill that would impose significant new voting restrictions and allow the state legislature to reject election results.
The measure would require the state legislature to convene after primary and general elections to review the ballot counting process and “shall accept or reject the election results”.
The proposal does not require lawmakers to find evidence of fraud or lay out any factors they would have to consider in order to overturn an election.
Even with the current supreme court? I will defer to your legal expertise, but I have zero faith in them. Maybe they make some kind of states rights argument or something?OPK wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 1:13 pmI am confident that any law purporting to allow the legislature to overturn an election, without any criteria, would be found facially unconstitutional.dudog wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 11:29 amOk, Arizona is trying. But since it's only proposed and not official (like Florida's Surgeon General) I say Florida still has the edge. At the moment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7KzArizona Republicans have introduced a bill that would impose significant new voting restrictions and allow the state legislature to reject election results.
The measure would require the state legislature to convene after primary and general elections to review the ballot counting process and “shall accept or reject the election results”.
The proposal does not require lawmakers to find evidence of fraud or lay out any factors they would have to consider in order to overturn an election.
The current court has shot down Trump’s bullshit efforts to steal the election and to stonewall discovery. I do believe that they are dedicated to the rule of law, my political disagreements with them aside.CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 6:01 pmEven with the current supreme court? I will defer to your legal expertise, but I have zero faith in them. Maybe they make some kind of states rights argument or something?OPK wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 1:13 pmI am confident that any law purporting to allow the legislature to overturn an election, without any criteria, would be found facially unconstitutional.dudog wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 11:29 amOk, Arizona is trying. But since it's only proposed and not official (like Florida's Surgeon General) I say Florida still has the edge. At the moment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz
If there are laws that the Dems want to challenge, they need to do so sooner rather than later, because it seems like the courts are a lot more willing to shoot down laws the further in advance of the election that it hits their docket.
So do I. The language used in some earlier cases does not make me optimistic on this score, but I certainly think the Fourteenth Amendment should control in a situation like this. But the language is just different enough from Article II, Section 1, that I can see a sliver of daylight there if a literalist Court wants to head that direction. Arizona (and others) seems determined to make us find out.OPK wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 6:20 pmThe current court has shot down Trump’s bullshit efforts to steal the election and to stonewall discovery. I do believe that they are dedicated to the rule of law, my political disagreements with them aside.CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 6:01 pmEven with the current supreme court? I will defer to your legal expertise, but I have zero faith in them. Maybe they make some kind of states rights argument or something?
If there are laws that the Dems want to challenge, they need to do so sooner rather than later, because it seems like the courts are a lot more willing to shoot down laws the further in advance of the election that it hits their docket.
The Fourteenth Amendment trumps state law. That requires due process (standards) and not disenfranchising minority votes. One man, one vote is pretty ingrained in lawyers of all political ilks. A law saying that a vote can be overturned by anyone is gonna be hard to clear, let alone one that lets folks do it for any subjective partisan reason.
The courts were a big backstop against the Trump efforts last time, and I am confident that they will work to ensure that whoever gets the most legally-cast votes win the electoral college representatives they are due.
But I understand the apprehension, judges are often portrayed in the media in political terms when in reality the political leanings are usually not party-based (they are philosophically-based).
JMHO. I hope I am correct.
https://www.witn.com/2022/02/04/new-nc- ... ruck-down/The North Carolina Supreme Court has struck down new voting maps in the state.
The court made the decision in a 4-to-3 vote.
Voting rights groups challenged that the Republican favored maps, which passed in November, saying they violated residents’ rights under the state constitution.
MO voter here. Trust me when I say there are NO good choices in the Republican primary. I used to think Greitens was far and away the worst candidate, and AG Eric Schmitt might be the best, until he started showing his true colors. Our current Attorney General is Greitens’ closest competition, and he has been suing anyone and everyone who dares to institute a mask mandate. He is using state funds to file politically motivated lawsuits, in an effort to get a Trump endorsement and/or appeal to Retrumplican voters. After all this, I see Schmitt as Hawley 2.0. The idea of him in the US Senate scares me. Hopefully whoever wins the primary will lose in the general election.CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2022, 6:30 pmI don't read CNN as much as I used to but this is an interesting article about Trump endorsing candidates. There is a part of me that thinks that in some more purple areas, the optimal situation is for Trump-endorsed extreme right candidates to win the Republican primaries as the few remaining people in America who are on the fence might be scared off by them and vote Democrat. Or is it better to have a more mainstream Republican (everything is relative) win the primary and then maybe some of the really hard core Trumpers won't bother to show up. I think each situation is a little different.
It amazes me that esteemed Duke alum Greitens in Missouri is a leader given all of his baggage. Him and Hawley would really be a classy delegation - tons of fancy academic degrees yet primarily supported by the trashiest, least educated voters who swear of the elite.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/politics ... 8YzN9wqb6M
Thanks for the update. I have not been following closely - are there any decent D candidates? My personal moderate bias is that someone closer to the middle who can win over disgruntled Republicans is the best bet, but others might feel differently and I don't know the political landscape out there as well.ArkieDukie wrote: ↑February 6th, 2022, 8:50 amMO voter here. Trust me when I say there are NO good choices in the Republican primary. I used to think Greitens was far and away the worst candidate, and AG Eric Schmitt might be the best, until he started showing his true colors. Our current Attorney General is Greitens’ closest competition, and he has been suing anyone and everyone who dares to institute a mask mandate. He is using state funds to file politically motivated lawsuits, in an effort to get a Trump endorsement and/or appeal to Retrumplican voters. After all this, I see Schmitt as Hawley 2.0. The idea of him in the US Senate scares me. Hopefully whoever wins the primary will lose in the general election.CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2022, 6:30 pmI don't read CNN as much as I used to but this is an interesting article about Trump endorsing candidates. There is a part of me that thinks that in some more purple areas, the optimal situation is for Trump-endorsed extreme right candidates to win the Republican primaries as the few remaining people in America who are on the fence might be scared off by them and vote Democrat. Or is it better to have a more mainstream Republican (everything is relative) win the primary and then maybe some of the really hard core Trumpers won't bother to show up. I think each situation is a little different.
It amazes me that esteemed Duke alum Greitens in Missouri is a leader given all of his baggage. Him and Hawley would really be a classy delegation - tons of fancy academic degrees yet primarily supported by the trashiest, least educated voters who swear of the elite.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/politics ... 8YzN9wqb6M
Yeah, what are D chances in Missouri? That state seems to have gotten really red over the last decade, what's going on? Did Obama's election suddenly bring back memories of the Missouri compromise?CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑February 6th, 2022, 10:23 amThanks for the update. I have not been following closely - are there any decent D candidates? My personal moderate bias is that someone closer to the middle who can win over disgruntled Republicans is the best bet, but others might feel differently and I don't know the political landscape out there as well.ArkieDukie wrote: ↑February 6th, 2022, 8:50 amMO voter here. Trust me when I say there are NO good choices in the Republican primary. I used to think Greitens was far and away the worst candidate, and AG Eric Schmitt might be the best, until he started showing his true colors. Our current Attorney General is Greitens’ closest competition, and he has been suing anyone and everyone who dares to institute a mask mandate. He is using state funds to file politically motivated lawsuits, in an effort to get a Trump endorsement and/or appeal to Retrumplican voters. After all this, I see Schmitt as Hawley 2.0. The idea of him in the US Senate scares me. Hopefully whoever wins the primary will lose in the general election.CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2022, 6:30 pmI don't read CNN as much as I used to but this is an interesting article about Trump endorsing candidates. There is a part of me that thinks that in some more purple areas, the optimal situation is for Trump-endorsed extreme right candidates to win the Republican primaries as the few remaining people in America who are on the fence might be scared off by them and vote Democrat. Or is it better to have a more mainstream Republican (everything is relative) win the primary and then maybe some of the really hard core Trumpers won't bother to show up. I think each situation is a little different.
It amazes me that esteemed Duke alum Greitens in Missouri is a leader given all of his baggage. Him and Hawley would really be a classy delegation - tons of fancy academic degrees yet primarily supported by the trashiest, least educated voters who swear of the elite.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/politics ... 8YzN9wqb6M
*Whew!* is right. 4-3 decision, with full decision rationale to follow in order to keep to the normal election schedule. A vigorous dissent accompanies the order, the main purpose of which is to deride the order for lack of reasoning. Of course, the order itself says the decision - presumably with full rationale therein - will be forthcoming later. That's a very narrow escape, and I'll be interested to see what kind of maps are actually submitted by Feb. 18th.CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 8:40 pmWhew!
https://www.witn.com/2022/02/04/new-nc- ... ruck-down/The North Carolina Supreme Court has struck down new voting maps in the state.
The court made the decision in a 4-to-3 vote.
Voting rights groups challenged that the Republican favored maps, which passed in November, saying they violated residents’ rights under the state constitution.
