https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Party does make a difference

Partisan politics are problematic. But there is a difference between the GOP and Dems in the policies they pursue.

Americans tend to love to hate politicians. “Politicians! They’re all alike! Interested in power and lobbyist money and prestige!” This usually then diverges into chants of “Drain the swamp!” or “Up the people!” or something like that.

Political parties get similar lambasting. Which usually ends in cynical / angry / bitter mutterings about how “They’re all the same.”

I’m not going to defend politicians or political parties, except to note that, from a policy standpoint, they’re not “all the same.” As FiveThirtyEight points out, looking at states which are dominated (both legislative chambers and the governorship) by the GOP or by the Democrats, the legislation and policies being pursued are quite different.

And that doesn’t even count legislation around abortion.

One can argue whether these are profound enough differences to ignore the ways that political parties are similar (“Send us your money!”), and one can point to plenty of places where the political parties fail to live up to their philosophical standards. And, as the article notes, even these issues are not wholly partisan.

But, comparing these two, I know which states I want to live in (and, in fact, I do live in one of them). The two major parties might not differ enough in all the ways I want them to, but they differ more than people making glib condemnations would have you think.

Do you want to know more?  What Republicans And Democrats Are Doing In The States Where They Have Total Power | FiveThirtyEight

“Voting Rights? You don’ need no steenking Voting Rights!”

It’s easy to bypass the will of the people when you control the state government

Ah, Florida …

Florida voters managed to pull off a coup in the 2018 election, passing by a nearly a 2-1 majority Amendment 4 to the state constitution, saying that felons would have their voting rights restored as soon as they completed their sentence.

It was a vote decision that was widely feared by the GOP, because it would potentially re-enfranchise 1.4 million Floridians, and the GOP assumes that a majority of them will vote for Democrats, which is enough to tip the very narrow balance of partisan power in Florida away from the Republicans.

So, of course, they’re gutting the law.

“But, Dave,” you might say, “this is a state constitutional amendment — how can they override that?” Great question!

Answer: by deciding that the amendment actually needs enacting legislation, and by crafting that legislation to say that you can’t have your franchise back until you’ve fully paid all the thousands of dollars of fees related to your trial, your court time, your prison time, your prison medical care, all sorts of fees that the state of Florida has imposed to (a) pay for a justice system without taxing the taxpayers, and (b) saddle ex-cons with debts they cannot pay off.

As a result it’s estimated that at least half, if not more, of those disenfranchised felons that the majority of Floridians thought should be re-enfranchised … will remain disenfranchised.

“But, Dave,” you might say, “how can they get away with that?” Another great question.

It’s easy.

The GOP has the majority of both houses of the state legislature.

The GOP has the governorship (through a headline-narrow margin in 2018).

The GOP, thanks to the actions of that governor, now have a 6-1 lock on the state supreme court, too.

The “enacting legislation” is thus expected to be passed, signed, and be immune to state court challenge.

See, it’s easy to keep power and defy the will of the voters, if you know how and don’t mind being shameless about it.

Do you want to know more? Florida Republicans are sabotaging Amendment 4.

An old friend wins a state seat

@Lisa4Exeter Congrats!

The 2018 Election: The Colorado Perspective

(As of 11:50pm MST)

The Candidates:

Jared Polis (D) has won for governor (replacing the previous D who was term-limited out). Polis is the first openly gay state governor, and, remarkably, that wasn’t an issue raised prominently by either side. It’s kind of crazy that only 25 years ago, Colorado was the home of the awful Amendment 2, and here we are. There is hope …

And, for the first time since I moved to Colorado 24 years ago, I have a Democratic US Representative. Jason Crow (D) has defeated long-time incumbent Mike Coffman (R). This has been a long time in coming — the last redistricting turned CO-6 from a major suburban GOP stronghold (this was Tom Tancredo country) into something a lot more competitive, but Coffman has leveraged his incumbent advantage … until this year. Huzzah.

Though my R state senator wasn’t up for election, and my R state assemblyperson won reelection (narrowly). Still, it looks like the Dem candidate for Secretary of State has won, and the Attorney General looks to be doing to the D as well.

The Ballot Propositions:

My previous discussions about these here:

Amendment V – Reduce the age to serve in the state lege from 25 to 21.
I voted Yes. The state voted No. substantially.

Amendment W – Revising the format of the judicial retention ballots.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, narrowly. WIN

Amendment X – Revising the definition of industrial hemp.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN

Amendment Y – Fixing congressional district redistricting.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN

Amendment Z – Fixing state legislative district redistricting.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN

Amendment A – Removing slavery language from the state constitution.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN

Amendment 73 – School funding increase.
I voted Yes. The state voted No.

Amendment 74 – Property value compensation for laws / regulations.
I voted No. The state voted No. WIN

Amendment 75 – Increase campaign contribution limits vs. self-funded campaigns.
I voted No. The state voted No, substantially. WIN

Proposition 109 – Bonds for highway projects.
I voted No. The state voted No, substantially. WIN

Proposition 110 – Taxes and bonds for transportation projects.
I voted Yes. The state voted No, substantially.

Proposition 111 – Limits on payday loans.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN

Proposition 112 – Increased setbacks for oil / natural gas.
I voted Yes. The state voted No.

So 9 “wins” vs 4 “losses” on the ballot propositions, which is much better than my usual record.

Original Post

The 2018 Election: The National Perspective

(As of 11:42pm MST)

I wish it had been more of a Blue Wave, but … it was enough for government work, so to speak.

The big news of the night is the Dems taking back the House majority, by enough of a margin to hold together in most cases. To be sure, as a single chamber, it means that the Dems cannot simply pass what they want — but the GOP no longer has that capability, either. The GOP still gets to further push conservative federal judges through the Senate, but plans by McConnell and Trump to gut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and the ACA (by law) are now on permanent hold.

There’s always a chance that the split House/Senate might be able to put together some bipartisan legislation on some important things. At which point, Trump becomes the obstruction. I’ve also heard rumors that Trump will all wheely-dealy and transactional with the House, but how he can do that without looking “weak” in front of his base would be a challenge. We’ll see.

Most importantly, there’s now an independent chamber of Congress to provide legislative oversight over the executive branch. All those House committees that have basically been providing cover for the Trump Administration will now be in the hands of the Democrats, with the power of subpoena, and the ability to pursue the investigations that the GOP have papered over, ignored, or given a pass to.

Again, the GOP still holds the Senate, which means primarily executive appointments remain under GOP control. And, despite all the breathless anticipating of presidential impeachment, the GOP holding the Senate means it will never happen (and even in the wildest wet dreams of flipping the Senate, it would never have flipped enough to get a partisan-driven impeachment conviction through).

Indeed, the if the GOP actually builds its majority in the Senate (as seems likely), it means more for the Dems to claw back, and it means that the “Oh, we only need to flip 1-2 votes to block some Senate awfulness” is now a much bigger hill.

That was to be expected, given the really bad electoral map for the Senate the Dems faced this year. The GOP hits that wall in 2020. We’ll see what happens.

On the other hand, fiscal bills — budgets and taxes — have to originate in the House, which seriously puts a crimp in both McConnell and Trump’s agendas (which are not quite the same).

If nothing else comes of it, the added friction of the Dems in control of the House means Trump is going to run into more obstructions in his ghastly administration of the federal government. That can (in my opinion) only be a good thing.

A few other observations.

1. I’m really sad that Voldemort Rick Scott will be going to the Senate. I’m also disappointed Gillum lost the governorship in Florida. Both elections were noteworthily close, but, damn.

(It will be interesting to see how Florida’s passing the re-enfranchisement of released felons will affect future elections.)

Also gravely disappointed that the loathsome Steve King won re-election — though his GOP peers from Iowa seem to going be down to defeat.

Really sorry to see Ted Cruz squeak by to success. I hope this is not the last we see of Beto O’Rourke.

On the other hand, Chris Kris Kobach went down to defeat, so huzzah.

I’m waiting on tenterhooks for both Wisconsin and Georgia. I hope I don’t have more disappointments there.

2. Overall, it looks like a significant erosion of Trump support vs 2016 (if it’s fair to use results in this election as a proxy for Trump support in comparison to his presidential percentages, since he made the vote “about” him). A lot of House races in districts that went Trump by significant double-digit percentages, went to Dem contenders. Some of that is the “natural” swing for a president’s first mid-term. But it seems more than that, not quite enough to enable massive change, but significant.

The Republican vote seems to be Men and Whites Age 45+. Though I am compelled to hashtag, ahem, #notalloldwhitemen

3. Looking at the voting maps, we continue to see Urban going D, Rural going R. What seemed to change was a lot of Suburbia was showing a shift to the Ds. If that continues, that will be big.

4. Watching the results come back, I was wowed by the diversity, especially in gender. Both in GOP and especially Dem winners, there was a massive number of women being elected onto the national scene. That’s great.

Special kudos to the first two Native American women elected to Congress. It’s about time.

5. Thrilled to see heavy voter turn-out. That’s a good thing. I might be less happy about some of the voters that came out — but as I’ve said repeatedly, voter turn-out = engagement = societal strength, at least as a long-term thing.

Net-net, I’ve had happier elections. But God knows I’ve had worse.

Original Post

Idiotic reasons people are giving for not voting

We're doomed.

1. I was so disappointed in 2016.
2. Grassroots organizing feels good and is so much more impactful than (ugh) voting.
3. The Democrats aren't fighting hard enough against Trump, so what's the point?
4. It's better to be an informed non-voter than an uninformed voter.
5. I need to be absolutely certain before I vote, lest I vote for someone bad.
6. "I hate mailing stuff: it gives me anxiety."
7. My vote will only be symbolic, so who cares?
8. I hate being judged by people who judge me for not voting. That's very judgmental, so I won't vote, just to spite them.
9. Since my vote doesn't matter, I only want to vote for people who are perfectly aligned with my ideals.
10. Getting absentee ballots is haaaaard.
11. The Democrats aren't progressive enough for me, so I'll just let the Republicans continue to be in charge.
12. Political parties spend too much time talking to old people, so I'll show them to pay more attention to young people by not voting.
13. I'm not ready to vote this election. Maybe next election.
14. How dare my perfect candidate throw their support behind their bitter rival in the primaries?! Just for that, I won't vote!
15. I felt bad about the candidate I voted for because they weren't perfect and they didn't win, so why bother voting again?
16. The biggest issue is Climate Change, and the Democrats aren't opposing that hard enough, and we're all going to die, so why vote?
17. The candidates opposing Trump just aren't exciting enough to motivate me to vote.
18. Voting sucks time and energy away from "actually building power" with the people around you.
19. If your candidate loses, it feels awful and causes despair for years! Why risk that?
20. Voting is support of system I don't like, so by not voting I am signalling I want the system to change, because that's how it will happen.
21. Voting is too easy. Stickers are trivialities. Who can respect a system like that?
22. Registering to vote is haaaaaard.
23. I didn't have any stamps.
24. Mean people used to tell me how to vote, so now that I am out from under them, I don't vote at all. That'll show them!
25. Voting takes so much tiiiiiiime! And I'd have to forward my work calls to my cell phone, too!
26. Everyone told me how to register, but not how to vote. What's up with that?
27. Candidates don't use social media and bullet points enough. How can I ever possibly figure out who to vote for?

Sorry, User of Excuse Number 8: I am judgmental.




12 Young People on Why They Probably Won’t Vote

Original Post

That “Part of the Resistance” Op-Ed

I’ve been pondering this, and reading opinion (from right and left) since this extraordinary article came out. Some thoughts before something else pops up in the news cycle.

1. The GOP (mostly the punditry and, thus, Donald) have been paranoically railing against a “Deep State” of unaccountable Leftist bureaucrats resisting the President and defying our democracy. The irony appears to be the Deep State is Republican.

That irony is satisfying, but that doesn’t make the idea of government workers, even high administration officials, carrying out a soft coup — disobeying, forgetting to follow orders (and not reminding the President he gave them), all those other kinds of quiet sabotage — any more palatable. Sure, in a ticking bomb situation the first thing you do is try to defuse the bomb. But if you don’t let people know there was a bomb, and just keep defusing them as you see fit (and maybe dismantling some other clocks and unplugging other wires you think are better off disconnected), you’ve gone way beyond your remit.

The Deep State paranoia as it’s been raved about by Fox News talking heads has been goofy. But remember that “resistance” can be done against the “good guys” as well as the “bad guys,” and that setting a precedent of sabotaging a bad president’s actions as standard operating procedure means that a good president’s actions can be similarly sabotaged (for your own values of “good” and “bad”).

No organization can be effective or relied upon that way, and when that organization is the federal government in a representative democracy, the stakes become really high.

2. While there’s a certain amount of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” going on here, the Left should not be treating this person and their cabal of like-minded folk as comrades. It’s not that the writer dislikes Trump’s policies — in fact, they brag about how nifty so many of them are — just that Trump himself is kind of a dumpster fire who keeps getting off-message and off-task in dangerous ways.

(This is akin — perhaps very closely akin — to the “Yeah, but if you get rid of Donald you end up with Pence” thing. The dismantling of the social safety net, civil liberties for other than white men, the environment, and every progressive reform since the turn of the previous century would continue, just without so much tweeting or worry about nuclear war.)

To take the metaphor even further, we cheer for the “Operation: Valkyrie” dudes (Tom Cruise!) who tried to assassinate Hitler late in the war. Yay for wanting to kill Hitler! But the conspirators weren’t lovers of freedom and democracy. They weren’t motivated by wanting to stop the Holocaust or free the Nazi conquests. They were mostly conservative elites who were were actually happy with the conquests that had taken place, and really only wanted to create a new authoritarian government without that lunatic in charge in order to force peace negotiations to hold onto those conquests before it was too late.

Nobody would have minded if they succeeded in their plot, but it wouldn’t have ushered in a brand new peaceful Reich of puppies and unicorns.

3. But, hey, these guys are keeping Trump from doing some really awful stuff, right? Which, ironically, even if so (and for their values of “really awful”), means that the case for actually getting rid of Trump — whether the extremes of impeachment or even of the 25th Amendment, or the traditional way of simply seizing power in Congress through the mid-terms — becomes weaker.

If what we’ve seen Trump try to do is with the most zany corners sanded off by the Inside Resistance, then they they are, in fact, covering up for Trump in the short run and making his position more secure.

4. I have seen it suggested that this is a defensive move — that when the walls come tumbling down one way or the other in the White House, this will be either a ticket for an individual or group of individuals to get away or be rehabilitated (“Hey, don’t prosecute me, I’m a member of the Inside Resistance!”), or else the foundation for saving the GOP itself (“Hey, don’t vote us out of office, we were resisting Trump from within!”). Neither is particularly admirable.

(In the short term, this latter may be a key to why this is coming out now. “Stick with the GOP, Midterm voters! We’ve got your back even if you don’t like Trump!” Um …)

5. By publishing this, the writer has given Trump justification for his narcissistic paranoia. They really are all out to get him! That then allows him to purge folk he’s been waving on, and, more importantly, reject future suggestions of moderation or course deviation.

Is that a good thing? It’s kind of the reverse of Number 3, but it’s also completely predictable, so why do it? What’s the actual purpose for this op-ed and its timing?

6. I’ve seen a lot of folk say that, rather than Quiet Resistance (sabotage), the writer and their cabal of like-minded friends would be better off simply resigning, publicly so. “But then we couldn’t try to stop him from within!” Yeah, but as has been noted, that’s not necessarily working real well, and has its own drawbacks.

Resign publicly, and then, if you are real heroes, spill the beans. Here’s what I saw. Here’s what he planned. Here’s what he said. That has more of an effect, adding to the chorus of other who have done the same, than quiet reassurances that you’re hiding deep within, protecting us from the stuff you say is too extreme for you.

7. The $64K question is, who’s the writer (and their friends)? That’s the foundation for really judging this, because it would show the motivations in what they’ve talked about, the timing of doing it, and what they’ve actually revealed. There’s a lot we can’t truly parse out until we know that part of the story.

Until then all we have are vague confirmations from an anonymous (but pretty certainly accurately self-described high administration official) source that, yeah, the zaniness we’ve heard about from past journalistic and resigned official tell-alls is actually pretty much true (again, something to remember come November), and that there’s a set of people who are (they say) keeping it from being worse than it is, whether they were elected to do so or not.

We also have a President going crazy over the matter and demanding the NYT turn over their source, which, of course, they should not do (regardless of my feelings about them), and that will be of interest to watch, too.




Opinion | I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

Original Post

North Carolina’s GOP manage to successfully run out the clock on gerrymandering

Though a federal court found that the state legislature’s districting plan is rigged to favor the GOP and “constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution,” the same court has now ruled that there’s not enough time for the state to redraw a new plan and have it in place for the November mid-terms without impacting campaigning and voter turn-out.

While Democrats are a plurality in the state (followed by Republicans, who are almost falling behind Unaffiliated), the GOP has managed to draw districts to capture 10 of the 13 House seats from North Carolina. Presumably, under the current gerrymandered map, they will be able to hope for similar outcome, and will then have another two years to drag things out further.




North Carolina’s unconstitutional gerrymandered map will be used in midterms – CNNPolitics
A federal court concluded Tuesday there is ‘insufficient time’ before the November midterm elections to redraw North Carolina’s unconstitutional gerrymandered map.

Original Post

House GOP are worried about a government shutdown … but only BEFORE the election

That seems to be the bottom-line sentiment. They think a shutdown is fine, that letting the federal government grind to a halt unless Donald gets his Great Wall is okay … but they want it after the election, because otherwise it might hurt their  chances in November.

Ponder that for a minute, and what that says about their sincerity about anything of principle, vs. their desire to hold onto power.




Trump on government shutdown: ‘If it happens, it happens’ – POLITICO

Original Post

In case you thought all that ACA Repeal stuff was dead and gone

It’s not. The GOP are just waiting for a November win to get rid of the ACA, including pre-existing medical conditions (vague promises to the contrary notwithstanding). They’ve actually said that.

Again, remember why the ACA was passed:

1. People dying (or just chronically suffering, and unable to work) from lack of insurance coverage (no, you can’t go to the ER to treat your cancer, heart disease, or diabetes), either because their employers didn’t have to provide it, because they couldn’t afford individual policies, or because they had some vague “pre-existing condition” that meant insurance companies could either deny coverage or jack up the costs through the roof.

2. People being driven into bankruptcy because of medical bills on policies that had annual and lifetime caps, or that didn’t include critical coverage, or that didn’t cover things that, oh, hey, pre-existing conditions again!.

3. Because the basic ideas behind the ACA were supported by both the GOP and conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation … until it was a Democrat that was pushing them into law.

The GOP politicians today seems mainly concerned with getting rid of #3. If #1 or #2 happen again, well, none of them are likely to suffer that way.

Something to remember this November.




Opinion | Get Sick, Go Bankrupt and Die – The New York Times
What the midterms mean for the future of health care.

Original Post

Tweetizen Trump – 2018-09-03 – All Politics Is Personal (to Donald Trump)

Donald lashed out yesterday (once again) at Attorney General Jeff Sessions for having the audacity to run a Justice Dept. that dared file charges against two of Trump’s earliest Congressional supporters. (The charges against Rep. Collins and Hunter were not for that particular lapse of ethics and taste, of course, but for a variety of securities fraud, insider trading, campaign finance violations, etc.)

For Donald, the great crime here seems to be that … well, Sessions wasn’t partisan enough. Because of course the Attorney General should be partisan, otherwise what is the point of having the President being able to nominate him?

I mean, look at the “charges” Donald is lobbing:

1. This was a “long-running” investigation — because Donald wants to be able to just accuse people of things and have it go directly to trial. Long-term investments, careful gathering of evidence, careful consideration of what charges can be prosecuted, that’s all just namby-pamby process to him. Which, as we all know, is something Donald abhors.

2. These were “Obama era” investigations — therefore it is immediately suspect, probably evil, and certainly something out to get Donald Trump. The Justice Department should clearly only prosecute crimes the President wants them to prosecute, and any investigations still ongoing from a previous administration should be immediately dropped as soon as someone new is in the White House.

(Note: the Duncan Hunter investigation actually began during the Trump Administration. But why cavil over dates, amirite?)

3. The accused are “two very popular Republican Congressmen” — because being very popular should make one immune to prosecution (careful of the implications of that line of thought, Donald), and the fact that they are Republicans should make them doubly immune, right?

4. This came out in “a well publicized charge” — because of course only the “Fake Media” would have any interest in publicizing that two members of the US House of Representatives were facing federal charges.

5. The charges came out “just ahead of the Mid-Terms” and when “there is not enough time” for them to be fully prosecuted / defended / dismissed before the election — There’s an informal rule at Justice that you don’t release charges and stuff like that within 60 days of an election (thus Democratic outrage at Comey’s “October Surprise” — which Donald loved at the time) — but not only is that not actual law, these charges came out well before that informal 60 day limit before the November midterms.

I mean, what does Donald think should represent a go/no-go point for charges to be filed? 60 days? 90 days? 180? Or does Donald thing that charges should never be filed against the President’s co-partyists?

Does anyone truly think that Donald would be pitching a fit if these charges were against Democratic Representatives? That, right there, is telling.

6. These Congressmen were facing “Two easy wins now in doubt” — That may or may not be so (Donald, of course, is convinced that the GOP are going to blow the Dems away in November, because he knows this is a referendum on him, too), but this accusation only makes sense if one assumes that these charges are made up out of whole cloth, presented and timed solely for political reasons.

Bottom line, Donald Trump thinks the Justice Dept. should serve the interests of the party in power in the White House — and not only thinks it, but is willing to say it.

That, right there, should be grounds for gelding any influence he has by getting rid of GOP majorities in both houses. I’d even suggest it shows a disrespect for the rule of law that should be impeachable, though I doubt that will actually happen.

Just to add to the mix, he later tweeted:

Again, remember that all politics is personal to Donald, not unlike a Mafia capo. The idea of a mixture of loyalties, of appreciating things about a person vs not appreciating other things, is foreign to him. You are either loyal to Donald Trump, or a traitor to him.

Speaking personally as a Democrat, I do not love Jeff Sessions. His policy positions are, generally, loathsome. I do feel sorry for the guy sometimes — he gave up an influential Senate seat to take on a cabinet position he thought would be at the forefront of (legally) implementing a conservative reign over American law, only to become a perpetual punching bag for his boss because of one, very public ethical stance he took: recusing himself from any oversight of the Mueller investigation because of his own role in the Trump campaign.

I admire that stance. I don’t love the man. But, then, not understanding that kind of nuance seems to be Donald’s way.

Similarly, I (like many others) still strongly disagree with Comey’s disclosure of more possible stuff to investigate just prior to the 2016 election — one more factor in how that election played out — but can do so without considering him a foul fiend, or without appreciating his apparent candor and ethics regarding Trump’s shenanigans. Again, it’s nuance, something that With-Me-Or-Against-Me Donald doesn’t recognize.

Which is ironic. Because just as Trump accuses the Dems of flip-flopping on Comey (“hating” him until suddenly they “loved” him), so Donald flip-flopped on him, “loving” him for his October Surprise, until he refused to bow knee and kiss the ring sufficiently; then Donald suddenly “hated,” him, fired him, and has released unrelanting vitriol toward him.

Which should be a lesson to us all: when Donald is accusing someone of something, look to see how that reflects is own behavior.




Trump blasts Sessions over GOP congressmen indictments – CNNPolitics
President Donald Trump on Monday blasted his Attorney General Jeff Sessions and lamented the indictments of two lawmakers who were his earliest supporters in Congress during the 2016 election, suggesting they should not have been charged because they are Republicans.

Original Post

Vote!

In addition to the first day at a new job (albeit a day full of training), today was +James Hill‘s official first Casting of a Vote in an Election. Huzzah for civic involvement!

 

Original Post

George Will is voting for Democrats in Congress this fall

Will is often too in love with his own voice, and I disagree profoundly with him on so many policy matters, which he casts out like pearls before swine, giving erudite essays that tend toward heartlessness.

But apparently he's finally had enough.

Amid the carnage of Republican misrule in Washington, there is this glimmer of good news: The family-shredding policy along the southern border, the most telegenic recent example of misrule, clarified something. Occurring less than 140 days before elections that can reshape Congress, the policy has given independents and temperate Republicans — these are probably expanding and contracting cohorts, respectively — fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which they should vote.

The principle: The congressional Republican caucuses must be substantially reduced. So substantially that their remnants, reduced to minorities, will be stripped of the Constitution’s Article I powers that they have been too invertebrate to use against the current wielder of Article II powers. They will then have leisure time to wonder why they worked so hard to achieve membership in a legislature whose unexercised muscles have atrophied because of people like them.

Will is not necessarily upset at what actions the GOP-dominated Congress has take to date, but over what actions they haven't taken, i.e., anything to rein in the guy in the White House and his gang of "louts".

An article worth passing on to the traditional conservatives in your life.




washingtonpost

Original Post

Ideals, pragmatism, and the evolving GOP vote

This article discusses how (many, not all) evangelical types in Nevada are rallying around a notorious brothel owner who has won the GOP nomination for a seat in the state legislature.

“This really is the Trump movement,” Hof, 71, told Reuters in an interview at Moonlite BunnyRanch, his brothel near Carson City in northern Nevada that was featured on the HBO reality television series “Cathouse.” “People will set aside for a moment their moral beliefs, their religious beliefs, to get somebody that is honest in office,” he said. “Trump is the trailblazer, he is the Christopher Columbus of honest politics.”

The immediate reaction is to point fingers and talk about hypocrisy. This guy, like Trump, embodies all sorts of non-Christian ideals, but conservative Christians are turning out to support him. What a bunch of maroons! But I think there's more to it than that, and not necessarily a bad more-to-it.

“People want to know how an evangelical can support a self-proclaimed pimp,” Fuentes said in an interview at his home in Pahrump, an unincorporated town of 36,000 people that is the largest community in the sprawling, rural district where Hof is favored to win in November’s general election.

He said the reason was simple. “We have politicians, they might speak good words, not sleep with prostitutes, be a good neighbor. But by their decisions, they have evil in their heart. Dennis Hof is not like that.” The pastor said he felt Hof would protect religious rights, among other things.

In Hof’s Republican-leaning district, seven evangelicals said they voted for him because they believed that he, who like Trump is a wealthy businessman and political outsider, would also clean up politics and not be beholden to special-interest groups and their money.

Politics is about compromise. It's trying to balance the needs of multiple constituents, multiple interests. It's about being willing to take a candidate who is imperfect, but the better (or less worse) choice.

In a sense, this shift is a sign of maturity by evangelicals, an acknowledgment that no candidate is perfect, that no person is perfect, and that even a sinner can do good, can serve the public, can advance a healthy change.

Of course, I also think this particular application of this tolerance is delusional. Coupling "Trump" with "honest politics" is crazy. Assuming that wealth makes one a "political outsider" and therefore will lead to a clean-up of corruption is also myopic, to say the least. Hof sounds like a dubious candidate for change, except for change that lines his own pocket, and Trump seems to have demonstrated that his devotion to evangelical causes is solely occasional throwing of bones, whereas his central agenda strikes me as actually opposed to Christ's preaching.

But while the application is wildly misguided (and a bit desperate), the principle behind it is not altogether out of whack. Refusing to vote for your interests because a candidate imperfectly represents your ideals sounds kind of good on paper, but generally speaking means you won't be represented at all. Figuring out what level of imperfection and compromise is tolerable is a pain in the ass and an uncomfortable thing to do, but it's also a sign of growing up.




In age of Trump, evangelicals back self-styled top U.S. pimp
He styles himself as America’s best-known pimp, a strip-club owner who runs multiple brothels and looks set to win a seat as a Republican in the Nevada legislature with the blessing of many conservative Christian voters.

Original Post

Primary Season in Colorado

This is a set of podcasts interviewing each of the primary candidates (Democratic and Republican) running for governor this year. Independents (whic is the largest "party" in the state) can now vote in either primary (but not both), so it's a useful list. The interviews were held in April-May, so they are both a bit dated and also allow for a bit of pre-primary clarity.

I've listened to all the Dems (since that's how I swing), and it's interesting. None of them have me in transports of rapture, but there are some I liked better than others — some that came across as more pragmatic, more idealistic, more evasive, more political. They're worth a listen more than looking at self-serving checklists of positions (and opponents' positions) put out by the candidates.

Highly recommended for Colorado voters, of whatever party (or lack thereof).




Who’s Gonna Govern?
Hear in-depth interviews with the men and women who want to be Colorado’s next governor before you vote in the primaries. The candidates discuss the biggest issues facing the state and what they plan to do when they get into office.

Original Post

Rick Scott, Florida, and the Trump Effect

To be honest, Scott is enough of a boil on the body politic that I’d love for him to lose badly for any number of reasons. If he does, in fact, lose because of his past vigorous association with Donald Trump (an association that he’s now hemming and hawing about), that would be icing on the cake.

That said, it’s a loooooong way to November, folks.




Can Florida Gov. Rick Scott overcome anti-Trump sentiment? – The Washington Post
Gov. Rick Scott, perhaps more than any other major Republican Senate candidate this cycle, is uniquely tied to the president.

View on Google+

Why most people haven’t noticed their big tax cut

Bottom line: for the vast majority of people, the minor amount extra broken out each week is buried in the “noise” of other fluctuations in income, or is just too small to move the emotional needle. And, again, for the vast majority of people, the Trump tax cuts didn’t actually amount to all that much in the first place.




An Extremely Short and Clear Explanation of Why Americans Haven’t Noticed Their Tax Cuts
For most families, they’re extremely small.

View on Google+

A first-time federal ruling against partisan gerrymandering

And I say huzzah.

Gerrymandering — by any political party to achieve and sustain its staying in power — is anti-democratic and wrong. That’s true whichever party is doing it (though at present most challenges are against the GOP, who were most recently in a position to game the system after their 2010 midterm victories), and I am perfectly happy to see court decisions and legislation that block the practice by anyone, even the party I vote for most often.

If you can’t win without stacking the deck in your favor, then you don’t deserve to win. The fundamental principle of voting is that we all have a say in determining our elected representatives; when that principle is violated with no more reason than “We want our side to win,” it’s an attack on everyone.




North Carolina’s Novel Anti-Partisan-Gerrymander Ruling – The Atlantic
Judges said redistricting designed to elect Republicans violated the Constitution, the first time a federal court has come to that conclusion.

View on Google+

Paul Ryan prepares to go out with a bang

There’s a lot of inside baseball in this article about the workings of the GOP House caucus, their various factions, their internecine struggles — and about Paul Ryan’s rumored plan to leave Congress after next year, and to cap his career with both a massive tax reform bill (likely, but by no means guaranteed, to succeed) and the brutal social program cuts that have always been Ryan’s highest calling as a disciple of Ayn Rand.

But a lot of what it says makes sense to me from my own observations of the GOP and Washington. And, if it’s accurate, next year is going to be a major high stakes war on what this nation means and whom it serves.

How much of it is true? How much of it will Ryan actually be able to make happen? Tune in a year from now when we’ll have all found out …




Paul Ryan Sees His Wild Washington Journey Coming to An End – POLITICO Magazine

View on Google+

A poll tax on college students in New Hampshire

Both federal and state courts have made it clear that students attending college in a given state have the right to vote in that state.

New Hampshire GOP’s current response is, “Sure. Here’s how much extra it will cost you.”

It’s unlikely that the New Hampshire law will stand up courts scrutiny … but who ever can really be certain? And, in the meantime, it will add a layer of uncertainty for a group of voters that the Republicans are always looking to suppress or discourage.




New Hampshire Republicans Want to Impose a Poll Tax on College Students
The 2016 election was a bittersweet one for the New Hampshire Republican Party. The GOP won unified control of the state government, but Hillary Clinto …

View on Google+