Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

Do any Michigan primary voters have a strong preference for a particular R candidate to become the sacrificial lamb?

The field is a national embarrassment. I think I’m gonna vote for Rinke but I’m most interested in the circuit court judge race.

[iam416]

I'd vote for Nick Sheridan if he's running. Or, I guess, Wilton Speight.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Do any Michigan primary voters have a strong preference for a particular R candidate to become the sacrificial lamb?

The field is a national embarrassment. I think I’m gonna vote for Rinke but I’m most interested in the circuit court judge race.

I saw where Rinke's running an ad bashing Dixon for being sponsored by turncoat Never-Trumper Betsy DeVos, which makes me laugh.

[lineygoblue]

I'm most interested in local races.

Nobody is going to beat the queen bee. Rich democrats are seeing to that. Gretch gets a 2nd term, and when stupid Debbie runs again, she'll win too. Its what Michigan does.

And its actually comical watching Hollywood and the liberal media try to describe conservative folk. It goes all the way back to the early 70's when liberal Norman Lear made Archie Bunker the 'spokesman' for the "right" in the country. He was a buffoon, a caracature, and it worked. Mission accomplished.

Lear later came along and gave us "George Jefferson", who honkeyed his way to fame while America dismissed African Americans from being bigots. Its impossible for blacks to be bigots, you know. If you don't believe that, you too can be cancelled.

And America continues to gulp down these ideas.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Archie was pretty realistic if you ask me. I had relatives that sounded a lot like him. He was often humanized and softened on that show too. He was the star after all.

If you want to see a caricature watch Peter Boyle in the movie Joe.

[Da Geezer]

Posts here have spoken of the people who are Turmp's base and could get him re-elected as President. I don't believe there has been much commentary about the scope and power of this movement and the political impact they are going to have moving forward. I see the most dangerous efforts of this movement are attempts to reshape state level election laws and replace election officials with movement members. I'm not familiar enough with legislation before the US congress regarding federal efforts to keep state election laws, including processes determing how electors are chosen, uniform but whatever they are, I'm for them and hope such laws don't become casualties of congressional political bickering.

I'd suggest you then work toward amending the US Constitution and doing away with the 10th amendment. The Constitution says that states (specifically their legislators) determine election rules within their own boundaries. JB, every so often you get into this mode where you want to impose what you think is right on the rest of the country by federalizing an issue. If Dobbs has taught us anything, it is that we are a constitutional republic with the states (individually) being the "default" decider of political questions.

Folks who want to change that should amend the Constitution.

From 1960 to 2020, the progs had a majority on the SC and the SC made "decisions" that operated as legislative pronouncements. Roe was a classic case of judicial overreach. So was Obergefell. We are now watching Congress passing laws to "protect" gay marriage and contraception. That is the process as it is supposed to work.

[Mike]

I'd suggest you then work toward amending the US Constitution and doing away with the 10th amendment. The Constitution says that states (specifically their legislators) determine election rules within their own boundaries. JB, every so often you get into this mode where you want to impose what you think is right on the rest of the country by federalizing an issue. If Dobbs has taught us anything, it is that we are a constitutional republic with the states (individually) being the "default" decider of political questions.

Folks who want to change that should amend the Constitution.

From 1960 to 2020, the progs had a majority on the SC and the SC made "decisions" that operated as legislative pronouncements. Roe was a classic case of judicial overreach. So was Obergefell. We are now watching Congress passing laws to "protect" gay marriage and contraception. That is the process as it is supposed to work.

Don't tell that to Tom's future House Rep, Rashida Tlaib.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/no-to-executive-beast-mode/

A few weeks ago, after the Supreme Court had reminded Congress that it — and not the president — is charged with making law, Representative Rashida Tlaib described the judiciary as “fascist.” Helpfully, Tlaib provided a definition of this term. “Fascism,” she proposed, is a system in which “the federal government will be restricted from regulating anything of significance in the absence of a clear congressional directive to do so.” That, as the kids like to say these days, is “telling on yourself.”

These are the people running the country...

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'd suggest you then work toward amending the US Constitution and doing away with the 10th amendment. The Constitution says that states (specifically their legislators) determine election rules within their own boundaries. JB, every so often you get into this mode where you want to impose what you think is right on the rest of the country by federalizing an issue. If Dobbs has taught us anything, it is that we are a constitutional republic with the states (individually) being the "default" decider of political questions.

Folks who want to change that should amend the Constitution.

From 1960 to 2020, the progs had a majority on the SC and the SC made "decisions" that operated as legislative pronouncements. Roe was a classic case of judicial overreach. So was Obergefell. We are now watching Congress passing laws to "protect" gay marriage and contraception. That is the process as it is supposed to work.

Someone could also argue that the arrangement you describe was changed by the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, which shifted the locus of power away from the states to the Federal government. If you want that changed, amend the Constitution to alter or eliminate the 14th Amendment, because that is where the Federal Government's authority to intervene in many ways rests.

Prior the the 20th century and especially prior to the 14th Amendment, it was generally accepted that the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to state governments.

[Obi-Jon]

Do any Michigan primary voters have a strong preference for a particular R candidate to become the sacrificial lamb?

The field is a national embarrassment. I think I’m gonna vote for Rinke but I’m most interested in the circuit court judge race.

Agreed. My absentee ballot is still in the table, with just the guv unfilled. JFC, millions here in the state and the GOP fills their field with idiots. Maybe genuine conservatives are too disgusted to even try when they know they'll face clown candidates and Trumpian scrotum suckers in the primary.

[Jeff Buchanan]

There is a lot of nonsense to unpack here.

Not really. Let's start with this:

Although the term “America First” has been (was) resurrected in the 2016 presidential campaign, its historical origins (of the first America first political movment) have been buried under years of American politics and sketchy history. The America First movement has been described as isolationist, anti-interventionist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, and a bunch of know-nothings. That narrative fails(in retrospect failed) on several levels.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/com...first-movement

You can read about it at the link above but the "America First Movement" was born in the years leading up to America's entrance inot WWII. That characterization I quoted above was not at all consistent with the political views of it's membership. Some of it, yes, but not all. I think you would ascribe that characterization to the current Alt Right Movement whose genesis is the America First Movement of the late 30s. The term was co-opted by the Trump campaign and mimicked by his supporters. As I understand it, that name has receded in the current political circumstance.

The demographic of the current MAGA, Stop the Steal, whatever the movement's name is in the moment, less comprised of people under 39 that you speak of and is more populated by members over 45 (so I was off by 5 years). There are a lot of committed boomers in this movement (27% 60+).

https://www.heritage.org/defense/com...first-movement

Admittedly, "paranoia" was a poor choice or words to describe what's, in part, driving the political movement we we're talking about here.. There's no question about what is happening to American demographics. None. So, I agree with your perspective on this. It's happening.

The main point I wished to make in my post, however, was that the movment is filled with grass roots organizers advancing the political ambitions to fill state and local election officials postions with movement members. I consider that especially dangerous and an indicator that the movement has purchase and will have an impact on the mid-terms and the forthcoming presidential elections elections. If the movement is successful in placing members in local and state election official positions, we can expect a real challenge to the liberal-democratic principles enshrined in the US Constitution.

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU

[Jeff Buchanan]

The Constitution says that states (specifically their legislators) determine election rules within their own boundaries.

We're not going to agree.

DSL points out that following the Civil War, Congress wrote the 14th A. It covers a lot of territory and I'm no constitutional scholar but that amendmentit arguably gives the Feds the right to intervene in a states process of electing people to certain federal government offices to include congressional representatives, senators, the president and vice president. That is precisely why I support legislative efforts to standardize (you call it federalize) the process of electing federal government officials. The last thing we need in 2024 or even the mid-terms is the circumstance where officials in positions to determine outcomes and how they are reached are left to thier own devices to announce who won a particular election.

Where we will agree, though, is in condemning the trend of the US judicial system at all levels to make rulings, "decisions", that operated as legislative pronouncements. Roe was a classic case of judicial overreach.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Alex Jones trial began today to determine how much he'll be forced to pay to Sandy Hook parents

Jury selected for Alex Jones' Sandy Hook defamation trial | AP News

[THE_WIZARD_]

I want to force you to STFU.

[Hannibal]

Someone could also argue that the arrangement you describe was changed by the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, which shifted the locus of power away from the states to the Federal government. If you want that changed, amend the Constitution to alter or eliminate the 14th Amendment, because that is where the Federal Government's authority to intervene in many ways rests.

Prior the the 20th century and especially prior to the 14th Amendment, it was generally accepted that the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to state governments.

That's an interesting take on the issue, since the 10th Amendment specifically references states and their retention of the power to apply powers not specifically granted to the Federal government. "States' Rights" isn't really an accurate take on the issue though, as much as ":The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to do that".