Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

This Trump lackey is pathetic. But really I post it because I was baffled by Trump’s comment from a few days ago. Was he trying to be sarcastic possibly?

[CGVT]

I think constitutional amendments should be much more difficult to pass than a simple majority vote from the public. Makes sense to me. I’ve never liked that Michigan does this same shit. Constitutional amendments should be done through the legislature and require supermajorities.

Constitutions exist, in part, to protect against the whims of the day.

So you're saying that if in Michigan, the Dems were on the side of an issue that was not popular with the people and the Repubs and wanted to change the constitution to ensure that the issue could not come to vote, you would be OK with it?

I call bullshit.

BTW, this has been the law in Ohio for 111 years. It seems that in that time there were not many "whims of the day" that required a change.

[THE_WIZARD_]

LOONOCRAT

[CGVT]

Yawn

[THE_WIZARD_]

You tired? Or you just tired of playing fuck fuck again...

[iam416]

Heh

[iam416]

The amendment to go from 50/50 to 60/40 has to pass under the 50/50 standard. So, if a majority of voters vote for it, then it passes. I’m not sure what the problem with direct democracy in this general situation is. I mean, some states don’t even have voter referendums for constitutional amendments and some actually have the 60 threshold. So, that’s a whatever and is fundamentally ignorant of the real issues.

There are way more shady things going on starting with the August vote.

In the abstract, putting the 60/40 change to a direct vote can’t possibly be objectionable. But the backstory and other shit is where it gets not great.

[Mike]

So you're saying that if in Michigan, the Dems were on the side of an issue that was not popular with the people and the Repubs and wanted to change the constitution to ensure that the issue could not come to vote, you would be OK with it?

I call bullshit.

BTW, this has been the law in Ohio for 111 years. It seems that in that time there were not many "whims of the day" that required a change.

I just don't like passing constitutional amendments by the 50% +1 standard regardless of the policy or party. I don't know the back story with this issue in Ohio either but I'm damn sure I don't want to delve into the depraved inner workings of northern Kentucky's feeble minds.

[AlabamAlum]

Here’s some historic photos with Trump.

Here he is shaking Dr. King’s hand after warning him to not go to Memphis.

[AlabamAlum]

Here he is showing solidarity with Rosa Parks!

[AlabamAlum]

Here he is playing guitar on “Fat Bottomed Girls” for Freddie Mercury

[THE_WIZARD_]

Here you see Hitler with his understudy DJT...trumphitler.jpg

[iam416]

The backstory in Ohio is this:

Just this year, the General Assembly passed a law eliminating August elections for Constitutional Amendments (maybe all elections, don't know) -- because not enough people vote.

The pro-choice Amendment is on the ballot for November and it'll pass at 50%.

The Rs wanted to change the amendment process to make it 60%, which is PROBABLY enough to defeat the choice Amendment.

HOWEVER, in order to go from 50 to 60 for the choice vote, they needed to do an August election.

So, the General Assembly decided to reverse itself on August election months after its vote.

HOWEWVER, they didn't have enough votes to actually pass legislation (even in a veto-proof Assembly).

So, they passed some sort of resolution putting it on the ballot in August.

HOWEVER, the resolution almost certainly does not comply with Ohio law, so it's being challenged in the Courts.

A lot of statewide Rs have objected to the August shenanigans and some have come out against the move to 60 (in general).

Also, the proposed move to 60 for direct vote makes the signature requirment to get it on the ballot in the first place much harder (you used to have a threshold requirement for 44 counties -- now it's ALL 88 -- 5% of voters for each county). I'm ok w/ one or the other. 60 or threshold increase. Both are, IMO, overkill.

So, it's basically exactly what you'd expect from a party that has foreseeable veto-proof control of the legislature.

My objection isn't to move to 60. That I'm actually more inclined to agree with. My objections are to (a) the August shenanigans; and (b) the massively increased threshold to even get it on the ballot (and subject to 60%).

[iam416]

And, to retireate a couple core tenets of The Talent's view on government -- (1) don't ever, ever, ever trust beauracracies to act altruistically -- they act in their own self-interest and that's it. "Good government" occurs only to the extent it overlaps w/ self-interest. We do our best to align the two with tenets of democracy, but...(2) single-party rule is not good. We point out the ludicrous laws enacted in various Prog-run cities/states all the time, and folks on the Left point out the stupid shit R-run places do. What they have in common is single-party domination which, to (1), means almost an unfettered ability to indulge their own self-interest.

I view (1) and (2) as universally true for all government regardless of party. I'm more inclined to vote R because they are, IMO, less inclined to view government as a never-ending cure for every damn thing, so they are, IMO, less likely to pass terrible shit only because they are less likely to act. But if they do act, there's a solid chance it'll be bad, and the Ohio stuff I outlined qualifies as bad (IMO).

Also...

Wiz:

STFU

[Da Geezer]

There's more to the left having the media in their back pocket......I have subscriptions to two online media sources - the Economist and the NYTs (talent, STFU 😁). They are, admittedly as talent has made the point, the writers are on the left. Their editors are socialists. The Opinion section is, to put it generously, left leaning. No subscriptions to NRO or the like because I can get to what I want to read that's not pay walled and talent frequently posts links to conservative opinion pieces. Obviously, I'm following the war in Ukraine closely and have 4 good sources for that. I try to be open minded, convinceable when an argument makes sense - left or right.

What I notice from my effort to form balanced views is that I see way more selection/exclusion of facts to support a left leaning POV in NYT's, to lesser extent the Economist's, journalism. It can be, not always, subtle but effective in minimizing facts in support of a conservative POV the journalist or editor of these two news and opinion sources don't want to be associated with. Characterizing Biden's performance as president is one example. The NYTs grossly eliminates facts that support Biden's performance as poor. The Economist did do several pieces on that subject that pulled no punches, gave Biden and how the US Government functions (or doesn't) no quarter.

But WIzzy's point is spot on. The media megaphones some of the most egregiously ridiculous utterings of any lefty that gets a soap box to spout their nonsense from. The net impact is that such utterings become facts. Huge problem that certain media sources are responsible for creating.

Over the weekend, a nephew of mine told me that he was seeking balanced political reporting and he had settled on NPR. Completely unbiased.

Jeff, if you are just subscribing to the leftist Economist and the Far-Left NYT, you are intentionally avoiding the whole story. Might I suggest subscribing to the WSJ. WSJ has left-leaning reporting and right-leaning editorial comment.