• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2018 mid-term election

phiwum said:
I certainly think we ought to judge, say, Trump by his words today.

I also regret that Democrats were slow in turning towards gay marriage, for instance, but times were different then, and the idea more radical in the political and philosophical context. That's regrettable, but not so regrettable as, say, the current administration changing definitions so that transgendered people can't be considered in terms of civil rights and anti-bias legislation.
Click to expand...

Progress is always slow, especially if you can't avoid rolling backwards. The Party of Trump must be burned to the ground.
 
So how is everyone thinking tomorrow's gonna play out, I mean on a functional level. Smoothly? Incidents at the voting places?
 
JoeMorgue said:
All I'm saying is Barack Obama saying "Marriage should be between a man and a woman" in 2008 and being a progressive hero and Mitt Romney saying the exact same thing in 2012 and being a bigot is a bit much. That's all.

That's not generation or a 20-30 cultural shift. That's a "Waiting for a new season of Ricky and Morty" timeframe.
Click to expand...

Well, isn't it also saying that Obama was a bigot, too, but he got over it? Pushing for civil unions was "progressive" in 2008 and it was "heroic" to go against the pseudo-Christian right on that. It wasn't just equal legal rights they were against, but they were definitely against that. Romney just ducked on that issue in 2012 by saying leave it to the states, whereas by then Obama had shed another bigotry by not holding others to his religious beliefs.
 
Then:
"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

-- Maxine Waters (June 23, 2018)​

Now:
"It is obvious that the president of the United States of America is placing a target on my back and he keeps calling my name and lying about me in order to make the target work. The president is divisive and he continues to dog whistle to his constituency out there. He’s promoting violence."

-- Maxine Waters (Nov 4, 2018)​
 
JoeMorgue said:
So how is everyone thinking tomorrow's gonna play out, I mean on a functional level. Smoothly? Incidents at the voting places?
Click to expand...

I think its contentious enough at the institutional level that we'll hear of reports throughout the day of irregularities in all the places we'd expect (and until recently were required by law to get extra special scrutiny, funny how that works). I wouldn't be surprised to see a serious dick move and a hostile response from the voters, but I wouldn't quite bet on it, maybe if it was a Presidential election.

But it won't be smooth, no. One party just flat out cannot sustain itself without ever-increasing amounts of lying, cheating, and stealing.

Which reminds me, we'll hear all day long from the tweetmaster general about all the mexicans being bussed to polling places and that the Russians are hacking our voting machines to elect Democratic candidates, of course.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
I confess that I changed my mind, too, and I'm about as liberal as they come. I also fully favored civil unions -- a contract with equality under the law -- but not "marriage" because I unduly associated marriage with procreation. I came to realize that a couple might or might not choose to become a family regardless of their ability to procreate, so there just isn't really any logical reason to make a distinction and give special status to hetro couples.
Click to expand...
I changed in the same way in my view, coming to accept gay marriage. I figure though that it was I became more Libertarian.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I had to vote for 4 separate "Soil and Water Conservation District" Officers.
Click to expand...

I had to vote on a propostion to make California savings time coindicde with National Savings Time. I kid you not.
California has a messed up system where simple ,basic,non controversial t changes that most states can do by a simple vote in the legislature has to go the voters for approval.
One prediction on This election I will make: California will have a Democratic Senator.............Both of the canidiates are Democrats, thanks to the "two candidates regardless of party who get the most votes in the primary face off in November" rule. The California GOP is so messed up they can't even get enough votes to get a candidate on the ballot for November....
 
Baylor said:
... a current president who has received numerous honors for his commitment to diversity, inclusion, and for benefiting underrepresented minorities.
Click to expand...

You gave one example from 32 years ago. What other honors has he received since then for "his commitment to diversity, inclusion, and for benefiting underrepresented minorities"?
 
Trump tweets

“Bill Nelson is kind of an empty figure in Washington. You never hear his name, he’s never in debates on key issues - he is just under the radar.” Chris Wallace on @FoxNews In other words, Nelson is a “stiff.”

"REMEMBER FLORIDA: I have been President of the United States for almost two years. During that time Senator Bill Nelson didn’t call me once. Rick Scott called constantly requesting dollars plus for Florida. Did a GREAT job on hurricanes. VOTE SCOTT!"
 
Trump reminds us

"Law Enforcement has been strongly notified to watch closely for any ILLEGAL VOTING which may take place in Tuesday’s Election (or Early Voting). Anyone caught will be subject to the Maximum Criminal Penalties allowed by law. Thank you!"
 
dudalb said:
I had to vote on a propostion to make California savings time coindicde with National Savings Time. I kid you not.
California has a messed up system where simple ,basic,non controversial t changes that most states can do by a simple vote in the legislature has to go the voters for approval.
One prediction on This election I will make: California will have a Democratic Senator.............Both of the canidiates are Democrats, thanks to the "two candidates regardless of party who get the most votes in the primary face off in November" rule. The California GOP is so messed up they can't even get enough votes to get a candidate on the ballot for November....
Click to expand...

As an outsider looking in California did always seem to be more willing to put stuff to public vote than a lot of the other states.

I mean we got some weird ones in Florida. Should felons get their voting rights back after finishing their sentences, should we ban dog racing, a handful of tax questions, and a weird one about whether or not we should have a vote about gambling. Not a vote on gambling, but a vote on whether or not we should have a vote which is... odd to me.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay but is it really logical to demonize someone over an opinion you held "a little while ago?"

Obama said "Marriage should be between a man and a woman" in his first term and it was practically considered hate speech by his second.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's logical to do that no.

For the record I don't think same sex marriage should be legal. BUT that's down to how I define marriage.
I think that the definition of marriage should be the Christian definition. So you should only be able to get married in a church. etc etc
I think there should be another term for marriage that doesn't come with all the religious baggage attached that should be equal in the eyes of the law as "Christian Marriage" and that should be available to everyone.

If marriage is a generic definition then it absolutely should be available to everyone.

The Left is sort of bad about this, throwing shade at the Right for thinking and saying things they thought and said like within a "Who's Playing Doctor Who" timeframe.
Click to expand...

I think it's fine to question people on views they expressed some years back. Do they still hold those views? If not what caused their change of mind?

I don't think you can be a sceptic unless you are also fine with other people changing their minds after they have seen evidence to change their position.

It's hard to discern sometimes between things politicians say to get elected vs things that they personally believe. A lot of them change tack depending on which view is more expedient, though that's probably more of a human trait rather than one specific to politicians.
Off the top of my head the biggest example I can think of in the US is religion. How many presidents were actually Christian vs those that just said the right things to get elected?. I'd love to live to see the day when an avowed atheist is elected POTUS.
 
JoeMorgue said:
As an outsider looking in California did always seem to be more willing to put stuff to public vote than a lot of the other states.

I mean we got some weird ones in Florida. Should felons get their voting rights back after finishing their sentences, should we ban dog racing, a handful of tax questions, and a weird one about whether or not we should have a vote about gambling. Not a vote on gambling, but a vote on whether or not we should have a vote which is... odd to me.
Click to expand...

Thing about California is the California Consitituion includes a number of things that in most states are done by simple statute law,and in order to change the constitution you have to go the voters. Thus the prop on savings time. Every elections we get a few "non controversial" props that in other states would be handled by the state legislature.
We do thing right occasionally....taking redistricting out of the hands of the state legislature and putting it into a non partisan commission has worked out fairly well....but we do some dumb things also. The "two candidates with the most votes in the primary face off in November regardless of party" needs to be changed.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Should felons get their voting rights back after finishing their sentences, should we ban dog racing.
Click to expand...

Not a weird one to me at all. They definitely should get their voting rights back if they serve their sentences. WTF not???
 
dudalb said:
Thing about California is the California Consitituion includes a number of things that in most states are done by simple statute law,and in order to change the constitution you have to go the voters. Thus the prop on savings time. Every elections we get a few "non controversial" props that in other states would be handled by the state legislature.
We do thing right occasionally....taking redistricting out of the hands of the state legislature and putting it into a non partisan commission has worked out fairly well....but we do some dumb things also. The "two candidates with the most votes in the primary face off in November regardless of party" needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

I've always been of two minds of this. On one hand it's hard to argue from a legal, philosophical, or ideological point that it's ever wrong to ask the public but on the other hand if you're just asking the populace... what does the government do?

I guess I have a weird way of looking at the relationship between "the state" and "the people" that is probably why I just don't get 100% onboard with most political conversations.

Questions of who's in power or who's subservient to who or who should hold what percent of power to do what are largely meaningless to me because I see as just a natural evolution of the concept of specialization of labor.

The government is neither by ruler or my servant. It's my employee. A person who I hire through my votes and pay through my taxes to handle things... I don't want to do.

And yeah I know everyone's onboard with that but the difference a lot of people aren't comfortable putting "making some decisions" on the "things I don't want to do" side of things.
 
carrps said:
Not a weird one to me at all. They definitely should get their voting rights back if they serve their sentences. WTF not???
Click to expand...

I voted yes on that one, although from what I'm hearing that one being passed in a long shot.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
I think its contentious enough at the institutional level that we'll hear of reports throughout the day of irregularities in all the places we'd expect (and until recently were required by law to get extra special scrutiny, funny how that works). I wouldn't be surprised to see a serious dick move and a hostile response from the voters, but I wouldn't quite bet on it, maybe if it was a Presidential election.

But it won't be smooth, no. One party just flat out cannot sustain itself without ever-increasing amounts of lying, cheating, and stealing.

Which reminds me, we'll hear all day long from the tweetmaster general about all the mexicans being bussed to polling places and that the Russians are hacking our voting machines to elect Democratic candidates, of course.
Click to expand...
Chinese, not Russians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom