2018 - Elections and Trends

[Js1 87332]

I'm surprised you dirty pervs haven't latched onto Gretchen Whitmer (D candidate for Michigan governor) yet.

 

[Zonahorn 8079]

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I'm surprised you dirty pervs haven't latched onto Gretchen Whitmer (D candidate for Michigan governor) yet.

 

Wood

[Message Board User 12409]

 

[Gil Bang 26285]

4 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

Seems like they've got him by the balls.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3876]

Gallego needed a better attorney.  There was no need to throw the word "always" in to his assertion of Alpine residence.  Always leave yourself an out.

[Js1 87332]

13 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Seems like they've got him by the balls.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/04/texas-legislators-residency-districts-november-general-election/

Quote

One of the most heated residency debates in recent memory came in 2010 when Brian Birdwell of Granbury won election to the state Senate. The fact that Birdwell, a Republican, voted in Virginia in 2006 established him as a resident of that state, Democrats argued in a lawsuit at the time.

Texas’ 5th Court of Appeals ultimately sided with Birdwell — which is common. According to Harold Cook, a Democratic political strategist based in Austin, most residency challenges that are brought to court are ultimately shot down.

“The law is what it is and those [challenges] hardly ever prevail,” Cook said.

That’s especially true for state legislative candidates because the state law that defines residency requirements is hardly cut and dry.

“Residency is the squishiest concept in Texas jurisprudence,” said former Texas Ethics Commissioner Ross Fischer. “It’s completely subjective.”

Quote

But if a candidate wants to file suit claiming his or her opponent doesn’t live in the district, the case is notoriously hard to prove.

That’s because residency is legally defined as a state of mind rather than a physical presence, Cook said.

“You can claim as your residence wherever you intend to return to and live some day. It’s not a question of where is the pillow that you lay your head on every night,” Cook said. “That would be the common sense answer to a ‘where do you live’ question.”

There are also some instances where a candidate doesn’t have to live in the district continually in the year or so leading up to an election. A college student who lives in one district but goes to college in another can run for office in his hometown even though he’s been at school for nine months, for example.

“You don’t always have to have continuous residence as long as you intend to return to your former residence when you’re done with public business,” said Hugh Brady, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “As long as you have an intent to return, you can vote and run for office.”

“It’s pretty hard to knock somebody out of the race unless they just have no connection whatsoever with the area,” he added.

Lastly, candidates can own a piece property or a business in a district and then claim that district as their residence.

“Some people who run for office, particularly wealthier candidates, will have several residences,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. “That opens up the possibility that they can run in the district of their choice, or they might buy a second or third residence in order to position themselves for a future run in a district that they don’t live in full time.”

 

[Js1 87332]

Federal, not state, but neither Doggett or Hurd live in their district, per that article.

[Message Board User 12409]

The GOP needs an enema.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

I feel like this is kinda a big deal:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-strip-super-delegates-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma

[bad_teammate 13569]

Demoncraps

 

[WhatTheBuck 28943]

37 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I feel like this is kinda a big deal:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-strip-super-delegates-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma

Even without the superdelegates, Bernie still would've lost. I don't care how the Democrats choose their nominee but if Bernie wants to have a say then he should join the party. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

Bernie aside, i think this is a win

[bad_teammate 13569]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

... but if Bernie wants to have a say then he should join the party. 

Democrats: A big tent party, but the side of the tent only opens on the right

[WhatTheBuck 28943]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Democrats: A big tent party, but the side of the tent only opens on the right

You'd have an argument if Bernie wasn't allowed to compete as a socialist independent, the farthest left candidate since FDR, for the Democratic nomination. But he was so you're just spouting empty rhetoric. 

[bad_teammate 13569]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You'd have an argument if Bernie wasn't allowed to compete as a socialist independent, the farthest left candidate since FDR, for the Democratic nomination. But he was so you're just spouting empty rhetoric. 

"Allowed" as in "actively conspired against within the party"

[SubliminalHorn 7012]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Allowed" as in "actively conspired against within the party"

Of which he is not a member. So yes, allowed. 

[Huckleberry 34756]

Why does this club that I refuse to join give preferential treatment to its members?!? It's a conspiracy!

[WhatTheBuck 28943]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Allowed" as in "actively conspired against within the party"

Bernie wasn't cheated. He just lost. He did better than expected but he really didn't come close. Get over it. 

[bad_teammate 13569]

Of course it was "allowed" for the Democrats to rig their primary. No one has argued otherwise. WhatTheBuck, like Dems always are, is defensive when it is pointed out that the party is hostile to its leftward "fringe" and gleefully welcoming of its right-facing "fringe" to such an extent that the Democrats' grand healthcare vision ended up being pulled from Mitt Romney's binders and universal healthcare only became their platform once it hit 70+% approval with their base and Donald Trump became president.

Bernie was actively conspired against within the Democratic party. That isn't arguable. The party is "allowed" to do that, of course, but when someone retreats to "It's not illegal for me to do that!" you know they've lost the moral and ethical argument.

[ERhine 1939]

What the fuck are you ranting about?

[bad_teammate 13569]

15 minutes ago, ERhine said:

What the fuck are you ranting about?

I said that the Democratic Party loves to move right and distrusts the left and people are mad about it for some reason.

[softlynow 1894]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Of course it was "allowed" for the Democrats to rig their primary. No one has argued otherwise. WhatTheBuck, like Dems always are, is defensive when it is pointed out that the party is hostile to its leftward "fringe" and gleefully welcoming of its right-facing "fringe" to such an extent that the Democrats' grand healthcare vision ended up being pulled from Mitt Romney's binders and universal healthcare only became their platform once it hit 70+% approval with their base and Donald Trump became president.

Bernie was actively conspired against within the Democratic party. That isn't arguable. The party is "allowed" to do that, of course, but when someone retreats to "It's not illegal for me to do that!" you know they've lost the moral and ethical argument.

Moral and ethical? You want political parties to be be moral and ethical?

I save my impossible wishes for things like a night with Lucy Pinder and Gemma Atkinson.

But toss off how you need to, I guess.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

OMG wouldn't a president like FDR be terrible? Infrastructure upgrades, a leveling of economic inequality, horrors never cease. 

[WhatTheBuck 28943]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Of course it was "allowed" for the Democrats to rig their primary. No one has argued otherwise. WhatTheBuck, like Dems always are, is defensive when it is pointed out that the party is hostile to its leftward "fringe" and gleefully welcoming of its right-facing "fringe" to such an extent that the Democrats' grand healthcare vision ended up being pulled from Mitt Romney's binders and universal healthcare only became their platform once it hit 70+% approval with their base and Donald Trump became president.

Bernie was actively conspired against within the Democratic party. That isn't arguable. The party is "allowed" to do that, of course, but when someone retreats to "It's not illegal for me to do that!" you know they've lost the moral and ethical argument.

Now you're making baseless assumptions. You don't know me. It doesn't take political affiliation to assess the 2016 Democratic nomination. It does take it to conclude that Bernie got screwed.

The most important issue to me is education. The Republicans suck on education and that's what made me jump the fence after voting for Reagan and Bush 41. Free college? And you want me to take Bernie seriously? No one else will. It's a dumb idea and would never happen. It's a careless, irresponsible, pie-in-the-sky promise that's a lot like Trump promising better health care for lower costs than Obamacare and it would be so easy. 

Are you from Vermont? Do you also suspect skullduggery in the cancellation of the Phish festival at Watkins Glen last week? They had heavy storms and there was a boil water advisory so the town/venue/promoter cancelled the event. A lot of those fans think they got cheated. You remind me a little of them. No, I'm not saying it was an act of God that cost Bernie the nomination. That was an act of the electorate. It's just that a lot more people voted for Hillary. 

[WhatTheBuck 28943]

24 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

OMG wouldn't a president like FDR be terrible? Infrastructure upgrades, a leveling of economic inequality, horrors never cease. 

Remind me again to which party FDR belonged. He also managed to clear a couple of a couple of important hurdles -- winning the nomination and winning the election. That's three strikes against Bernie. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

31 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Remind me again to which party FDR belonged. He also managed to clear a couple of a couple of important hurdles -- winning the nomination and winning the election. That's three strikes against Bernie. 

You miss my point. Bernie is no FDR save for policy ideas. But if the Democrats could find a candidate like him, I think that person would be well-received, rather than just somebody with no ideas other than they are notRepublican. 

[RayDog 682]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Now you're making baseless assumptions. You don't know me. It doesn't take political affiliation to assess the 2016 Democratic nomination. It does take it to conclude that Bernie got screwed.

The most important issue to me is education. The Republicans suck on education and that's what made me jump the fence after voting for Reagan and Bush 41. Free college? And you want me to take Bernie seriously? No one else will. It's a dumb idea and would never happen. It's a careless, irresponsible, pie-in-the-sky promise that's a lot like Trump promising better health care for lower costs than Obamacare and it would be so easy. 

Are you from Vermont? Do you also suspect skullduggery in the cancellation of the Phish festival at Watkins Glen last week? They had heavy storms and there was a boil water advisory so the town/venue/promoter cancelled the event. A lot of those fans think they got cheated. You remind me a little of them. No, I'm not saying it was an act of God that cost Bernie the nomination. That was an act of the electorate. It's just that a lot more people voted for Hillary. 

Why is free public college so pie-in-the-sky in your mind?

We already pay for K-12 and for the majority of public college costs. We already have socialized education. Paying the remaining public college costs is a small step. Bernie also wants to add pre-k, another small but important addition as we find pre-k education is much more important than thought when we formed our education system.

We already have Medicare, it is not socialism.  We already have public education, it is not socialism. We already have minimum wage, it is not socialism. We live in a social democratic republic, and we need to get better at the social part of that.

[WhatTheBuck 28943]

1 hour ago, RayDog said:

Why is free public college so pie-in-the-sky in your mind?

We already pay for K-12 and for the majority of public college costs. We already have socialized education. Paying the remaining public college costs is a small step. Bernie also wants to add pre-k, another small but important addition as we find pre-k education is much more important than thought when we formed our education system.

We already have Medicare, it is not socialism.  We already have public education, it is not socialism. We already have minimum wage, it is not socialism. We live in a social democratic republic, and we need to get better at the social part of that.

It should be affordable. I don't think it should be free and I don't think it's practical or achievable to make it so, especially in our current political climate. It's a campaign promise that's guaranteed to be broken. 

When a student turns 18 it should be possible for them to work their way through college if their parents can't pay for it. But there should be some cost involved to weed out students who aren't taking their education seriously. 

[RayDog 682]

When I went to UT tuition and fees were less than $1000 a semester. We definitely can afford to return to that level of state support plus that little extra. 

I dont think anyone is proposing covering cost of living, just like we dont in high school. Many people will still need to work to live while they go to school. Two proposals I have read also cut it off at family incomes if 85,000 and about 130,000 respectively.

As for cost it is estimated to be 75 billion a year. Bernie wants to pay for it out of a 300 billion tax on Wall Street speculators with most of the rest going to infrastucture projects to but a million people to work. Others have proposed paying for it by rolling back the last two years of defense spending increases. I am ok with both proposals.

[bad_teammate 13569]

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Now you're making baseless assumptions. You don't know me. It doesn't take political affiliation to assess the 2016 Democratic nomination. It does take it to conclude that Bernie got screwed.

The most important issue to me is education. The Republicans suck on education and that's what made me jump the fence after voting for Reagan and Bush 41. Free college? And you want me to take Bernie seriously? No one else will. It's a dumb idea and would never happen. It's a careless, irresponsible, pie-in-the-sky promise that's a lot like Trump promising better health care for lower costs than Obamacare and it would be so easy. 

Are you from Vermont? Do you also suspect skullduggery in the cancellation of the Phish festival at Watkins Glen last week? They had heavy storms and there was a boil water advisory so the town/venue/promoter cancelled the event. A lot of those fans think they got cheated. You remind me a little of them. No, I'm not saying it was an act of God that cost Bernie the nomination. That was an act of the electorate. It's just that a lot more people voted for Hillary. 

"How DARE you say that the Democrats punch left! *said while continually punching left*" lol

I'm not sure what you're arguing with regard to Bernie (who you brought up, not me). All I've said is that the DNC conspired against him; everything else is a creation of your mind. Hillary won more votes than him in a process in which she was given favorable treatment. Of course the DNC was allowed to do that. The fact that they were allowed to doesn't make it untrue. Maybe she would've won without any favorable treatment. Probably would have since she is so well known, maybe not. I don't know. I'm not even mad at her for that, but you guys are furious at Bernie for some reason (it's because you're conservatives).

And as for free college, get ready to choose between a free college candidate and Donald Trump in 2020.

Quote

But there should be some cost involved to weed out students who aren't taking their education seriously. 

Democrats = garbage

Edited August 26, 2018 by bad_teammate

[RDCanecutter 26968]

10 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

OMG wouldn't a president like FDR be terrible? Infrastructure upgrades, a leveling of economic inequality, horrors never cease. 

I've heard enough twingy-twangy Woody Guthrie folk music for one lifetime, thank you.

[Js1 87332]

2016 - Elections and Trends talk not going away

[bad_teammate 13569]

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

2016 - Elections and Trends talk not going away

The Dems can't get over the fact that the only genuine popular enthusiasm that exists in their favor is coming from the left (the conservalites will go right back to the GOP as soon as a nice man leads the ticket instead of the horrid clown). They can't understand why their moral scolding, "SIR!", center-right bullshit politics are almost universally fucking hated. They can't let go of their corporate overlords. They can't detach their lips from the balls of the military and deep state. The 2016 election was supposed to be a coronation of their id.pol-corporatist vision, but they got hurt in the primaries and humiliated in historic fashion in the general. They were going to ride suburban conservalites into a glorious future of woke corporate Tweets and union busting. And they lost. And they can't fucking get over it.

They will see any critique of their center-right politics as a secret, encoded "Bernie would have won*" message even though it's way bigger than Bernie.

(* - he would have)

[Js1 87332]

Anywho I wonder who Ducey appoints for McCain’s seat. They’ll hold it until Nov 2020. He said he won’t appoint himself. 

Maybe Cindy McCain as a placeholder. Or Martha McSally and just concede the 2018 Senate race. Or Chemtrails Kelly

[Buzzrock 15185]

When I went to UT tuition and fees were less than $1000 a semester. We definitely can afford to return to that level of state support plus that little extra. 
I dont think anyone is proposing covering cost of living, just like we dont in high school. Many people will still need to work to live while they go to school. Two proposals I have read also cut it off at family incomes if 85,000 and about 130,000 respectively.
As for cost it is estimated to be 75 billion a year. Bernie wants to pay for it out of a 300 billion tax on Wall Street speculators with most of the rest going to infrastucture projects to but a million people to work. Others have proposed paying for it by rolling back the last two years of defense spending increases. I am ok with both proposals.

Big college campuses are kinda ridiculous now. UGA takes up a tremendous amount of the city of Athens and a lot of surrounding land. That costs a lot of money to staff and maintain, much less actually “teach” on. When you can get whole degrees with a laptop and an Internet connection it makes me wonder if these state empires will collapse at some point.

Programs like the HOPE (lottery funded scholarships) have caused tuition to skyrocket too (hey free money!).

[RDCanecutter 26968]

4 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

When you can get whole degrees with a laptop and an Internet connection it makes me wonder if these state empires will collapse at some point.

Traditional campuses make me think of those beautiful monastery buildings you see all over Europe and Latin America. Almost like palace compounds, some of them.

Excuse me, former monasteries. Hardly anybody's packing their kids off to the monastery for an education anymore.

I sometimes teach college kids to speak foreign languages. We've come a long way from "Sit in the box and translate these sentences, preferably in silence." We get them to jabber, to play with apps, watch big screens with bouncy people doing entertaining stuff. In fact. all that remains for them to achieve true mastery is quit taking this class, get the hell off campus, and just go live someplace where they all speak this language.

But they need that paper. Stop needing that paper, everything changes, fast.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13751]

58 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Anywho I wonder who Ducey appoints for McCain’s seat. They’ll hold it until Nov 2020. He said he won’t appoint himself. 

Maybe Cindy McCain as a placeholder. Or Martha McSally and just concede the 2018 Senate race. Or Chemtrails Kelly

I would assume the gop party does not want Cindy McCain or have a proxy say that she wants the seat to continue to push John McCains agenda.   That would be their worst fear to be shamed into appointing her to the senate.   

If Meghan starts to say that Cindy should be named, that will tell us what Cindy wants. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

3 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

I've heard enough twingy-twangy Woody Guthrie folk music for one lifetime, thank you.

Half of that shit was protesting him for not being enough of a commie. 

Only barely related, but have you ever heard this?

 

[HenryJames 67515]

 

[retread 2951]

 

[Tuco 5099]

 

There is a Virginia Pilot article on this. There are multiple level of skull-fuckery on this. Taylor’s staff members were circulating a petition to get an independent candidate on the ballot (who happens to have fed charges against her) because they believe the third candidate will draw votes from the Dem. 3 of the 5 staffers have high levels of fraudulent signatures on their forms. Some of the signees have been dead for a while, another is 102 and can’t sign shit, others are Taylor supporters who say they’ve never signed the petition. Additionally, several names work for a sheriff’s office who says that it was circulated amongst the staff, despite the legal requirement that all signatures are witnessed by the pollster.

[GSU&UT 1799]

26 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

 

There is a Virginia Pilot article on this. There are multiple level of skull-fuckery on this. Taylor’s staff members were circulating a petition to get an independent candidate on the ballot (who happens to have fed charges against her) because they believe the third candidate will draw votes from the Dem. 3 of the 5 staffers have high levels of fraudulent signatures on their forms. Some of the signees have been dead for a while, another is 102 and can’t sign shit, others are Taylor supporters who say they’ve never signed the petition. Additionally, several names work for a sheriff’s office who says that it was circulated amongst the staff, despite the legal requirement that all signatures are witnessed by the pollster.

 

 

Posted this in the voter suppression thread, but here is a real actual case of something tantamount to voting fraud that has huge implications. Why isn't the rest of the GOP screaming their balls off?

[gmr548 16704]

5 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

LOL @ the third to last bullet...

[Tuco 5099]

The list misses some of the spurious, wrap-up-in-the-flag stuff. Remember the special forces deaths in Niger? Tipping off the Russians before the Syrian air strike?

[Message Board User 12409]

 

[Storm the Field 5367]

[gmr548 16704]

48 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

Goddamn liberal media

[shnsajax 3607]

3 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

I hope Ward gets Brain Political Correctness.

[Message Board User 12409]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]