US Politics: Rural Southernification… (thanks Zorral)

[Mlle. Zabzie]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

News ticker just said a judge is blocking it, but they didn't give any details and then cut to break. 

But I agree, it's terrible policy without taking into account what it's about. Can a 5-4 liberal SC allow citizens to sue one another for buying bullets if a state bans the sale of them?

Also, process question, my understanding is once the first person is sued they can in turn sue the state of Texas over the legislation, which would effectively freeze it in its tracks if a judge agrees, right?

Right.  And I think that is right.  I think the decision was technically that there was nothing yet to adjudicate.  I should add that the esteemed WSJ EB was at least intellectually honest enough to note that this law just encourages lots and lots of judicial activism…..

But yeah, this is why I endure high taxes, frigid winters, and, apparently, floods.  I get to live in a state that, while corrupt in a quaint, 19th Century kind of way, at least isn’t doing this bull pocky.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Most states have sore loser laws preventing candidates who lose in a primary from running in the general election.  This is why Lisa Murkowski had to employ a write-in campaign after she lost the 2010 Republican primary.  However, New York is one of the three states that does not have some type of sore loser law, which is why Brown can do this.

Didn't New York have a funny episode with that rather recently with AOC v. Crowley.

With Crowley traditionally being both the nominee for the Democrats and the Working Families Party (?sic). So after AOC beat him in the primary, he still appeared on the GE ballot under that other parties banner, and he couldn't drop out of it under NY law (unless he was to move states). Tbf, Crowley didn't do any campaigning in the GE (making attempts to actively overturn the primary results). Still, I vagueley recall the AOC camp not being too happy about it.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Didn't New York have a funny episode with that rather recently with AOC v. Crowley.

Yeah.  It didn't matter at all, and I didn't really get the beef since Crowley wasn't actively campaigning anyway, but here's a link on it.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah.  It didn't matter at all, and I didn't really get the beef since Crowley wasn't actively campaigning anyway, but here's a link on it.

Well, I could see how camp AOC wasn't happy, seeing the guy with the bigger name recognition showing up on the ballot again. While he didn't try to torpedo her election, I can see how the situation could make her (and her team) nervous.

I mean, Caruso-Cabrera actively tried to do that, but by now AOC is the political heavyweight, and she had effectively labeled Caruso-Cabrera as a GOP operative. So she was just irrelevant.

But Crowley at least had the potential to make life difficult for AOC at the time (I doubt he'd stand a chance now, but that's another story).

[DMC]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

But Crowley at least had the potential to make life difficult for AOC at the time (I doubt he'd stand a chance now, but that's another story).

Not after he endorsed her and didn't campaign against her - plus the two parties where Crowley was on the ballot both endorsed her after the primary.  She was never in jeopardy of losing the general - once she won the primary.  It was a petty thing, or no big deal, and was basically treated as such eventually by both sides.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Right.  And I think that is right.  I think the decision was technically that there was nothing yet to adjudicate.  I should add that the esteemed WSJ EB was at least intellectually honest enough to note that this law just encourages lots and lots of judicial activism…..

But yeah, this is why I endure high taxes, frigid winters, and, apparently, floods.  I get to live in a state that, while corrupt in a quaint, 19th Century kind of way, at least isn’t doing this bull pocky.

WSJ is hardly the problem when it comes to media that favors the right. They're far from fully drank the Kool-Aid status. 

And those on the right would disagree with your fancy liberal vaccine passports. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Mindwalker said:

Because that was his campaign, being a Democrat? I mean, it's probably legal, even though the judge's brother is a huge donor for Brown - it's just an asshole move. Considering that after Walton's primary win, establishment dems took step to basically render the mayor job powerless... Well, I'm sure it's all perfectly normal procedure after Dem primaries.

It may be an asshole move but there is nothing, and there should be nothing that limits a general election ballot to the two major parties.  The gatekeeping of ballot presence by the two major parties has always been problematic.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

WSJ is hardly the problem when it comes to media that favors the right.

Well, the WSJ editorial board may not be Trumpist, but let's be clear - the views they propagate are definitely still part of what's wrong with this country.

[Zorral]

58 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

But yeah, this is why I endure high taxes, frigid winters, and, apparently, floods

Off topic, but I can't help it.  Here you are, Mille, Z!  Fairly sure you and yours came through OK, but, well, you know. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

News ticker just said a judge is blocking it, but they didn't give any details and then cut to break. 

But I agree, it's terrible policy without taking into account what it's about. Can a 5-4 liberal SC allow citizens to sue one another for buying bullets if a state bans the sale of them?

Also, process question, my understanding is once the first person is sued they can in turn sue the state of Texas over the legislation, which would effectively freeze it in its tracks if a judge agrees, right?

Hopefully not.  And remember this case has not been heard on its merits yet.  The 5-4 holding is purely procedural.  The dissents are well considered and stinging as they should be.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It may be an asshole move but there is nothing, and there should be nothing that limits a general election ballot to the two major parties.  The gatekeeping of ballot presence by the two major parties has always been problematic.

I'm decidedly ambivalent on the normative value of sore loser laws.  I think both sides have valid arguments.  But mostly I just don't care because it very (very) rarely matters either way.  Sore loser laws are not the reason third parties can't emerge under our system.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, DMC said:

I'm decidedly ambivalent on the normative value of sore loser laws.  I think both sides have valid arguments.  But mostly I just don't care because it very (very) rarely matters either way.  Sore loser laws are not the reason third parties can't emerge under our system.

I know.  I desperately want to see FPTP go the way of the Dodo.

[A True Kaniggit]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I know.  I desperately want to see FPTP go the way of the Dodo.

A form of Parliamentary System.

Isn’t that your preferred method?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

22 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

A form of Parliamentary System.

Isn’t that your preferred method?

You can have  a parliamentary System without FPTP elections. Statewide party lists and proportional representation, instead of FPTP districts elections.

[A True Kaniggit]

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

You can have  a parliamentary System without FPTP elections. Statewide party lists and proportional representation, instead of FPTP districts elections.

Hmmmm? I was just checking if I remembered his preferred system correctly. We had discussed it previously. I wasn’t commenting on FPTP in relation to that system.

I agree it would be better than our current two party system.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Hmmmm? I was just checking if I remembered his preferred system correctly. We had discussed it previously. I wasn’t commenting on FPTP in relation to that system.

I agree it would be better than our current two party system.

 

Ok, was just a bit of weird turn in the conversation, that left me a bit confused.

Scot: I want FPTP gone.

You: You want a form parliamentary system, right?

[A True Kaniggit]

3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Ok, was just a bit of weird turn in the conversation, that left me a bit confused.

Scot: I want FPTP gone.

You: You want a form parliamentary system, right?

 I’m a weird guy. 
 

Weird turns happen around me.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

40 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Off topic, but I can't help it.  Here you are, Mille, Z!  Fairly sure you and yours came through OK, but, well, you know. 

Thank you, you too!  We were fine (I was upstate with the kids - I tried to go in on Thursday like an idiot but turned around in Mamaroneck for obvious reasons).  Our basement got a little wet, but it has drains and a sump pump so all good (though the dehumidifier is doing some extra work right now).  How are you all?  I hope good?  More on topic, was glad to see that our new governor got her butt down to Queens right away.  Giving her the benefit of the doubt for the time being….

[DMC]

38 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

 I’m a weird guy. 
 

Weird turns happen around me.

Well, not to be Professor Guy, but a parliamentary system is a system of government, i.e. as opposed to a presidential system.  FPTP and proportional representation (PR) are electoral systems.  Theoretically, you could have a parliamentary system with FPTP (e.g. the UK), or even a presidential system where the legislature is elected via PR (or even theoretically the executive too, if it had multiple members).

[A True Kaniggit]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, not to be Professor Guy, but a parliamentary system is a system of government, i.e. as opposed to a presidential system.  FTPT and proportional representation (PR) are electoral systems.  Theoretically, you could have a parliamentary system with FTPT (e.g. the UK), or even a presidential system where the legislature is elected via PR (or even theoretically the executive too, if it had multiple members).

Thanks Professor Guy .

 

More knowledge is almost never a bad thing.