Jump to content

US Politics: Catch the big crook under the “Big Cone”


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

North Carolina was almost exactly 6 points more Republican than the rest of the country in every presidential election since 2008.  Basically, if you are a democrat who wants to win NC, you need to win the national vote by 6 (which only Obama '08 managed).  NC has proven very different from VA and GA, because the suburbs are just not nearly as big.  Thus the Republicans trading suburban voters for increased margins in rural areas is going just fine in North Carolina.  And if GA is our guide, Republicans can probably hope to continue making that trade for a while longer.  In some rural GA counties, Trump won 85-90% of the vote.  In NC, the highest percentage was 80%, and 65-70% was much more common. 

This is a decidedly rudimentary analysis and your depiction therein is misleading.  North Carolina is not nearly as out of grasp for Democrats even though things of course change state-by-state let alone over time.  Hillary lost NC by 3.6% in 2016, whereas Biden only lost 1.4%.  That does conform to what you are saying in comparison to the national vote, but acting like that means it's a constant is just lazy analysis.

There was less than a two percent difference between NC and Pennsylvania in 2020.  That difference could go either way and depends on things nobody can control nor predict.  Same thing goes for the Senate race in NC in 2020.  If Cal Cunningham wasn't the Democratic nominee, or if Thom Tillis wasn't the Republican nominee, that election easily could have gone the either way.  

Anyway, I understand what you're trying to say, but just because there are trends doesn't mean those trends can't change at a moment's notice.  Obama won fucking Indiana in 2008.  And more importantly, just because there are certain trends in one state doesn't mean it applies to another state.  That's obviously not the case in Georgia nor Arizona under the same timeframe you are analyzing North Carolina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ants said:

Is there any scope to challenge these laws? I can’t help thinking there is an argument that it’s an infringement on free speech. 

There's plenty of scope to challenge them! The problem is who would you be challenging them against. Now to be vaguely fair SCOTUS hasn't signaled their hatred of freedom of speech in the same way they had abortion rights, but we are living at a point where logic, reason, past precedent and continuation of norms is not as important as the simple use of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, just for starters with what's going on in education at all levels, and not only the college/university in Florida, literally forbidding the teaching of history that includes the foundations of US history, which is everything around slavery, the prohibition against even speaking of contraception and reproduction and spying on women who might possibly be trying to not be pregnant -- even down to them traveling -- what do you call that, that doesn't include censorship and repression of free speech -- just for starters?  that even includes the introduction to passing laws that outline what women are supposed to wear -- and others' hair styles and clothing too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, DMC said:

This is a decidedly rudimentary analysis and your depiction therein is misleading.  North Carolina is not nearly as out of grasp for Democrats even though things of course change state-by-state let alone over time.  Hillary lost NC by 3.6% in 2016, whereas Biden only lost 1.4%.  That does conform to what you are saying in comparison to the national vote, but acting like that means it's a constant is just lazy analysis.

There was less than a two percent difference between NC and Pennsylvania in 2020.  That difference could go either way and depends on things nobody can control nor predict.  Same thing goes for the Senate race in NC in 2020.  If Cal Cunningham wasn't the Democratic nominee, or if Thom Tillis wasn't the Republican nominee, that election easily could have gone the either way.  

Anyway, I understand what you're trying to say, but just because there are trends doesn't mean those trends can't change at a moment's notice.  Obama won fucking Indiana in 2008.  And more importantly, just because there are certain trends in one state doesn't mean it applies to another state.  That's obviously not the case in Georgia nor Arizona under the same timeframe you are analyzing North Carolina.

Obviously trends change, and extrapolation is risky.  But for 2024, I would think AZ, GA, WI, PA, MI, NC, FL, OH in kind of that order are going to be the most competitive states.  NC is probably not worth spending a lot of resources for Dems, same for FL.  It's a shame because human gonad Rick Scott should be eminently beatable, and FL is one of the few bright spots for Dems to pick up a Senate seat.  NC doesn't have a senate seat in cycle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

There's plenty of scope to challenge them! The problem is who would you be challenging them against. Now to be vaguely fair SCOTUS hasn't signaled their hatred of freedom of speech in the same way they had abortion rights, but we are living at a point where logic, reason, past precedent and continuation of norms is not as important as the simple use of power.

Yeah actual legal justifications sounding 'good' or  'in good Faith' don't matter anymore.

Thomas or Gorsuch or anyone of them could literally wipe their ass and call it an opinion- it's not like they'll be removed from power or anything.  roberts may want to preserve some kind of sense of propriety for whatever fucking reason, be it ego, intellectual curiosity, legacy, whatever, but it's a thin fucking veneer and he clearly doesn't mind throwing caution to the wind and rolling in the mud with the rest of them when he feels like it.

Citizens United gives us a pretty good idea of where even our most liberal conservative justice stands on first amendment issues (or insert whatever your most sacred pet amendment is here).   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Yeah actual legal justifications sounding 'good' or  'in good Faith' don't matter anymore.

Thomas or Gorsuch or anyone of them could literally wipe their ass and call it an opinion- it's not like they'll be removed from power or anything.  roberts may want to preserve some kind of sense of propriety for whatever fucking reason, be it ego, intellectual curiosity, legacy, whatever, but it's a thin fucking veneer and he clearly doesn't mind throwing caution to the wind and rolling in the mud with the rest of them when he feels like it.

Citizens United gives us a pretty good idea of where even our most liberal conservative justice stands on first amendment issues (or insert whatever your most sacred pet amendment is here).   

Except that its not like every single case has gone against Dems since the court changed. Some decisions have still had a split.

My question is whether there is a reasonable argument, as if not then it wouldn't even get past Federal court as a first step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Murika, where a bunch of Klansmen and Klanswomen can punish a black immigrant because they're worried about her anti-Semitic comments. Fun times.

Some context?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ants said:

Except that its not like every single case has gone against Dems since the court changed. Some decisions have still had a split.

My question is whether there is a reasonable argument, as if not then it wouldn't even get past Federal court as a first step.

It hasn't, but a lot of them that had VERY stupid reasoning have. 

There are plenty of reasonable legal arguments; in general banning someone based on appearance or restricting what they wear or how they dress is protected expression. You can restrict these based on decency laws, however, and that's where it gets into the porn "I recognize it when I see it" area. That said, one bizarrely hilarious response to that is that because Drag Race has the FTC rating it does and is not particularly restricted the notion that drag is itself offensive to a broad swath of people (which is largely what the decency check requires) is almost certainly incorrect on its face. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the membership of the House Oversight Committee promises to be insanely explosive.  On the GOP side you got a lot of the key crazies - Jordan, Gosar, MTG, Boebert, newcomer Anna Paulina Luna, as well as frequent media presence Nancy Mace. 

With the Dems, Jamie Raskin retains ranking membership, but AOC is the new vice ranking member.  There's also Ro Khanna, Katie Porter, Cori Bush, and a host of promising freshman/women - Robert Garcia, Summer Lee, Maxwell Frost, Greg Casar, Becca Balint, and Dan Goldman - the lead majority counsel during Trump's first impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ants said:

Some context?

ants -- Ilhan was released from her (Foreign Affairs) committee obligations for making several antisemitic comments, which not even I am willling to repeat here, or anywhere. She'll still be allowed to participate in other committees, though. And I think she has the option to appeal.

According to this article, The Squad apparently had an emotional meltdown over it. Cori accused some of white supremacy; Alexandria, mysogynoir; and Rashida, sob-screamed. Surprisingly, even Hakeem admitted Ilhan used some antisemitic tropes.

I hope Ilhan will learn from this "teachable moment" :grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

So the membership of the House Oversight Committee promises to be insanely explosive.  On the GOP side you got a lot of the key crazies - Jordan, Gosar, MTG, Boebert, newcomer Anna Paulina Luna, as well as frequent media presence Nancy Mace. 

With the Dems, Jamie Raskin retains ranking membership, but AOC is the new vice ranking member.  There's also Ro Khanna, Katie Porter, Cori Bush, and a host of promising freshman/women - Robert Garcia, Summer Lee, Maxwell Frost, Greg Casar, Becca Balint, and Dan Goldman - the lead majority counsel during Trump's first impeachment.

and remember, firearms are allowed in these meeting chambers. Given the unstable personalities most likely to carry said firearms into said chambers, how long will it before there is an 'incident?' And will the perpetrator even get arrested, let alone imprisoned and tossed out of congress?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

ants -- Ilhan was released from her (Foreign Affairs) committee obligations for making several antisemitic comments, which not even I am willling to repeat here, or anywhere. She'll still be allowed to participate in other committees, though. And I think she has the option to appeal.

According to this article, The Squad apparently had an emotional meltdown over it. Cori accused some of white supremacy; Alexandria, mysogynoir; and Rashida, sob-screamed. Surprisingly, even Hakeem admitted Ilhan used some antisemitic tropes.

I hope Ilhan will learn from this "teachable moment" /cdn-cgi/mirage/83f80b3c19aca68599afe1bc42fdb4e8dfd9faceb8d9ac9406663de7092d2fbe/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_grouphug.gif

Oh God, what did she say? Was it about wanting a Jew to do her taxes? Jewish space lasers starting wild fires? Soros-backed conspiracies? Did she tweet out antisemitic tropes with a star of David and money in the background? Did she like about having family in the Holocaust? Oh wait, no that's MTG, Trump, Santos, et al.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/02/1153472237/ilhan-omar-foreign-affairs-committee-vote-republicans-remove

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Week said:

Oh God, what did she say? Was it about wanting a Jew to do her taxes? Jewish space lasers starting wild fires? Soros-backed conspiracies? Did she tweet out antisemitic tropes with a star of David and money in the background? Did she like about having family in the Holocaust? Oh wait, no that's MTG, Trump, Santos, et al.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/02/1153472237/ilhan-omar-foreign-affairs-committee-vote-republicans-remove

You don't even have to make it about today. Republicans have been courting anti-Semitic groups for multiple generations. Omar did make a few dumb comments, but it's hardly comparable to what the right has been actively doing for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You don't even have to make it about today. Republicans have been courting anti-Semitic groups for multiple generations. Omar did make a few dumb comments, but it's hardly comparable to what the right has been actively doing for a long time.

I truly don't know how these fucks sleep at night.

25 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Week -- oh, my word; it was awful! I can’t even /cdn-cgi/mirage/83f80b3c19aca68599afe1bc42fdb4e8dfd9faceb8d9ac9406663de7092d2fbe/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_crying.gif

Sometimes I get a real kick out of your schtick. Sometimes it's real lame. This has been the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

They sleep like babies. That's the scary part.

Waking up every hour crying, pissing themselves, and looking for breast milk?

I hope they suffer the first two and that nobody has to suffer on their behalf for the third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...