Widgets Magazine
Page 2 of 144 FirstFirst 123456752102 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 3580
  1. #26

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Preemption is a really nasty thing, everybody (conservatives and liberals, Rs and Ds, everybody) should be against it, it pretty much only benefits corporations. Sadly, we're probably just gonna have to roll over and get screwed, not much can be done, but we can try.

    The other right-wing tidal wave sweeping America: Federal and state preemption of local progressive laws
    I'm not sure I agree. There are plenty of situations where municipalities have absolutely no clue or, more importantly, no authority to regulate certain activities. Without preemption, you end up with a patchwork of laws and regulations that make compliance difficult and potentially impossible. This is particularly true with regards to land-use development. Local Zoning is good and fine, but it shouldn't be used to prohibit or curtail well-thought out developments. It's not always a bad thing to silence the NIMBY and BANANA crowd with some thoughtful state-level preemption.

    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/...mption/536241/

  2. #27

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by Stew View Post
    And if you're white and a member of the democratic party the right calls you ignorant or a mental case. How conservative, Come on man you're better than that!
    I've never seen anyone describe all white democrats ignorant or mental cases, although I will say many suffer from hysteria. Either way, I've got to say being considered a race traitor due to the party you belong to has to be worse than being called ignorant.

    Btw. I will say plenty on the right suffer from hysteria too. The birthers, Bengahzi, Clinton Emails crowd, for example.

  3. Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    ... But I think it's funny to label one party as a "white identity club". Politics is a white identity club. Regardless of party, it's dominated by wealthy white men. ...
    Yep, this I totally agree with, so very tired of the rich old white men running the country (and sooooo many other state, local, city, county municipalities (although there is more diversity at the non-federal level, but not nearly enough)).

  4. #29

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Coincidentally, this study came up in my morning feed. (The study is 35 pages. I found this cliff notes version after reading the study but the study is linked in the article so you can read it straight from the source.)

    Study: Trump fans are much angrier about housing assistance when they see an image of a black man
    In contrast, Clinton supporters seemed relatively unmoved by racial cues.

    All it takes to reduce support for housing assistance among Donald Trump supporters is exposure to an image of a black man.

    That’s the takeaway from a new study by researchers Matthew Luttig, Christopher Federico, and Howard Lavine, set to be published in Research & Politics. In a randomized survey experiment, the trio of researchers exposed respondents to images of either a white or black man. They found that when exposed to the image of a black man, white Trump supporters were less likely to back a federal mortgage aid program. Favorability toward Trump was a key measure for how strong this effect was.

    The study is just the latest to show that racial attitudes are a powerful predictor for support for Trump — and the newest to suggest that such attitudes play a major role in Americans’ views toward public policy. Previous studies have found that racial resentment was a much stronger indicator of support for Trump than views about the economy. And other research has shown that priming people to think about race can make them more conservative on a host of issues.

    This latest study is notable, though, because all it uses is an image of a black man to produce its results. That suggests that Trump has a powerful incentive to get people to keep thinking about race: If his most ardent supporters just need a slight racial cue to come around to his conservative policy views, then Trump simply has to bring up race to get his supporters fired up for him.
    https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...porters-racist

  5. Default Re: The national political landscape

    Coincidentally, I read this over the past day or so (took a long time to read and some of it is just a bit out-there for me, but there are some things that really struck home):

    The First White President

    Subhead is "The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy."

    "Asserting that Trump’s rise was primarily powered by cultural resentment and economic reversal has become de rigueur among white pundits and thought leaders. But evidence for this is, at best, mixed. In a study of preelection polling data, the Gallup researchers Jonathan Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell found that “people living in areas with diminished economic opportunity” were “somewhat more likely to support Trump.” But the researchers also found that voters in their study who supported Trump generally had a higher mean household income ($81,898) than those who did not ($77,046). Those who approved of Trump were “less likely to be unemployed and less likely to be employed part-time” than those who did not. They also tended to be from areas that were very white: “The racial and ethnic isolation of whites at the zip code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support.”

    An analysis of exit polls conducted during the presidential primaries estimated the median household income of Trump supporters to be about $72,000. But even this lower number is almost double the median household income of African Americans, and $15,000 above the American median. Trump’s white support was not determined by income. According to Edison Research, Trump won whites making less than $50,000 by 20 points, whites making $50,000 to $99,999 by 28 points, and whites making $100,000 or more by 14 points. This shows that Trump assembled a broad white coalition that ran the gamut from Joe the Dishwasher to Joe the Plumber to Joe the Banker. So when white pundits cast the elevation of Trump as the handiwork of an inscrutable white working class, they are being too modest, declining to claim credit for their own economic class. Trump’s dominance among whites across class lines is of a piece with his larger dominance across nearly every white demographic. Trump won white women (+9) and white men (+31). He won white people with college degrees (+3) and white people without them (+37). He won whites ages 18–29 (+4), 30–44 (+17), 45–64 (+28), and 65 and older (+19). Trump won whites in midwestern Illinois (+11), whites in mid-Atlantic New Jersey (+12), and whites in the Sun Belt’s New Mexico (+5). In no state that Edison polled did Trump’s white support dip below 40 percent. Hillary Clinton’s did, in states as disparate as Florida, Utah, Indiana, and Kentucky. From the beer track to the wine track, from soccer moms to nascar dads, Trump’s performance among whites was dominant. According to Mother Jones, based on preelection polling data, if you tallied the popular vote of only white America to derive 2016 electoral votes, Trump would have defeated Clinton 389 to 81, with the remaining 68 votes either a toss-up or unknown.

    Part of Trump’s dominance among whites resulted from his running as a Republican, the party that has long cultivated white voters. Trump’s share of the white vote was similar to Mitt Romney’s in 2012. But unlike Romney, Trump secured this support by running against his party’s leadership, against accepted campaign orthodoxy, and against all notions of decency. By his sixth month in office, embroiled in scandal after scandal, a Pew Research Center poll found Trump’s approval rating underwater with every single demographic group. Every demographic group, that is, except one: people who identified as white."

    "To Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the very core of his power. In this, Trump is not singular. But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies. The repercussions are striking: Trump is the first president to have served in no public capacity before ascending to his perch. But more telling, Trump is also the first president to have publicly affirmed that his daughter is a “piece of ass.” The mind seizes trying to imagine a black man extolling the virtues of sexual assault on tape (“When you’re a star, they let you do it”), fending off multiple accusations of such assaults, immersed in multiple lawsuits for allegedly fraudulent business dealings, exhorting his followers to violence, and then strolling into the White House. But that is the point of white supremacy—to ensure that that which all others achieve with maximal effort, white people (particularly white men) achieve with minimal qualification. Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that if they work twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump’s counter is persuasive: Work half as hard as black people, and even more is possible."

  6. #31
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    12,697
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Yep, this I totally agree with, so very tired of the rich old white men running the country (and sooooo many other state, local, city, county municipalities (although there is more diversity at the non-federal level, but not nearly enough)).
    Most people don't want to leave their jobs for a political office, so working people have little representation.


  7. #33

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunty View Post
    Most people don't want to leave their jobs for a political office, so working people have little representation.
    This is what I worry about when people talk about lowering the pay for state legislators. It's a good way to make sure only the independently wealthy pursue office.

  8. Default Re: The national political landscape


  9. Default Re: The national political landscape

    The irony of this specific election is great:

    "In Virginia’s 13th District, outside Fredericksburg, voters ousted Republican Del. Bob Marshall, the author of the state’s bill to ban transgender people from using the bathrooms of their choice, and replaced him with Danica Roem, a transgender woman who ran on a platform of fixing the area’s transit problems."

  10. Default Re: The national political landscape

    This is also great, finally taking down some of the rich (not always, though) old (not always, though) white men (almost always) in charge, just hope they can all do the job, and can help move the country forward....

    Here’s A List Of Historic Victories Democrats Had On Election Day

  11. #37

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    What a fantastic way to disenfranchise even more people. Think about it. This has got to be about the stupidest idea I have ever heard. So Oklahoma (as well as a ton of other "conservative" states) could technically be allotting their votes to a Democrat winner. Of course, you could also have California lumping the votes for Republicans. Can you imagine the outrage? Have people really thought about this?

  12. #38

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    What a fantastic way to disenfranchise even more people. Think about it. This has got to be about the stupidest idea I have ever heard. So Oklahoma (as well as a ton of other "conservative" states) could technically be allotting their votes to a Democrat winner. Of course, you could also have California lumping the votes for Republicans. Can you imagine the outrage? Have people really thought about this?
    You mean actually having the president be popularly elected? Yeah, that sounds horrible.

  13. Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    What a fantastic way to disenfranchise even more people. Think about it. This has got to be about the stupidest idea I have ever heard. So Oklahoma (as well as a ton of other "conservative" states) could technically be allotting their votes to a Democrat winner. Of course, you could also have California lumping the votes for Republicans. Can you imagine the outrage? Have people really thought about this?
    10 states and DC have already enacted it into law, and there are bills pending in 8 other states, so yeah, looks like people *have* thought about it and decided to do it. All it has to do is have enough states that have 270 electoral votes make it a law, and the rest of the country has no choice in the matter, so if OK doesn't make it a law after it gets made into law in the states that total 270 electoral college votes, it won't matter, it'll be a moot point. Kind of like how it's a moot point if you don't vote for the popular winner in all the states that allocate *all* their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state.

  14. #40

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    It would have been interesting to see how Gore or Clinton would have done under these conditions. This would favor candidates with energize bases like Obama and Trump. Clinton lost because of Comey. The negative impact he had would have been amplified nationwide like it did in the swing states this past election.

    Anyway, the odds of this passing in enough states is low. Some red states and swing states would need to jump on board.

    Of course, I don't think it will matter much the next presidential election. Its the Democrats election to lose. They just need to go for "par" and put up a somewhat favorable candidate.

  15. Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by jn1780 View Post
    It would have been interesting to see how Gore or Clinton would have done under these conditions. This would favor candidates with energize bases like Obama and Trump. Clinton lost because of Comey. The negative impact he had would have been amplified nationwide like it did in the swing states this past election.

    Anyway, the odds of this passing in enough states is low. Some red states and swing states would need to jump on board.

    Of course, I don't think it will matter much the next presidential election. Its the Democrats election to lose. They just need to go for "par" and put up a somewhat favorable candidate.
    There's only 105 electoral votes until it takes effect and the states that are listed as "pending" in the wikipedia entry total 97 votes. Of course, not all of them will pass the law, but if so, there wouldn't be much more to go to hit 105.

  16. #42

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    There's only 105 electoral votes until it takes effect and the states that are listed as "pending" in the wikipedia entry total 97 votes. Of course, not all of them will pass the law, but if so, there wouldn't be much more to go to hit 105.
    Sure seems like a Constitutional Amendment would be required to amend any material aspect of the Electoral College. And we can't get a majority of congress to agree on anything, much less a super majority.

  17. #43

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck5815 View Post
    Sure seems like a Constitutional Amendment would be required to amend any material aspect of the Electoral College. And we can't get a majority of congress to agree on anything, much less a super majority.
    States can decide how they choose electors how they see fit. However, this proposal would still require states who have enacted it to have a super majority of electors which would be a long shot.

  18. #44

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    There's only 105 electoral votes until it takes effect and the states that are listed as "pending" in the wikipedia entry total 97 votes. Of course, not all of them will pass the law, but if so, there wouldn't be much more to go to hit 105.
    Half of those electoral votes came from California. Maybe if out of the states still pending, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia voted for it, there would be a shot.

  19. #45

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by jn1780 View Post
    States can decide how they choose electors how they see fit. However, this proposal would still require states who have enacted it to have a super majority of electors which would be a long shot.
    Sure. But we're talking about states agreeing with other states regarding an issue of federal importance. The Compact Clause suggests that Congress would indeed need to sign off on the NPVC.

    "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

    ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 3

  20. Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck5815 View Post
    Sure. But we're talking about states agreeing with other states regarding an issue of federal importance. The Compact Clause suggests that Congress would indeed need to sign off on the NPVC.

    "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

    ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 3
    Read the Wikipedia article and you'll find this pertinent information:

    It is possible that Congress would have to approve the NPVIC before it could go into effect. Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and in several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy. Every Vote Equal argues that the compact could never encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. Derek Muller argues that the NPVIC would nonetheless affect the federal system in such a way that it would require Congressional approval, while Ian Drake argues that Congress is actually prohibited under the Constitution from granting approval to the NPVIC. NPVIC supporters dispute this conclusion and state they plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states.

  21. #47

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Read the Wikipedia article and you'll find this pertinent information:

    It is possible that Congress would have to approve the NPVIC before it could go into effect. Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and in several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy. Every Vote Equal argues that the compact could never encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. Derek Muller argues that the NPVIC would nonetheless affect the federal system in such a way that it would require Congressional approval, while Ian Drake argues that Congress is actually prohibited under the Constitution from granting approval to the NPVIC. NPVIC supporters dispute this conclusion and state they plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states.
    How about we just agree that it ain't exactly cut and dry. Honestly I don't see how that if it comes to pass, that it wouldn't end up on the Supreme Court docket.

    And then if it somehow came to pass that a Republican benefited from some system, an investigation on how the Russians interfered with our system would surely soon follow.

  22. Default Re: The national political landscape

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    How about we just agree that it ain't exactly cut and dry. Honestly I don't see how that if it comes to pass, that it wouldn't end up on the Supreme Court docket.

    And then if it somehow came to pass that a Republican benefited from some system, an investigation on how the Russians interfered with our system would surely soon follow.
    Absolutely agree it's not cut and dried, and yeah, it would probably challenged, but whether or not it actually gets accepted by SCOTUS is up in the air too.

  23. #49

    Default Re: The national political landscape

    Roy Moore.

  24. Default Re: The national political landscape

    First one's an opinion piece with an incredibly long list of things Rs have done to screw America, with lots of links to the facts behind the opinion, second one is pretty much the same.

    Why Do Republicans Hate America?

    The Deeply Immoral Values Of Today’s Republican Leaders

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Radio landscape in OKC
    By aviastar in forum Ask Anything About OKC
    Replies: 437
    Last Post: 05-28-2019, 01:45 AM
  2. Utility easement and landscape destruction
    By jerrywall in forum Edmond
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-27-2016, 01:03 PM
  3. Landscape Lighting
    By Celebrator in forum Ask Anything About OKC
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-04-2016, 02:40 PM
  4. OKC's Changing Political Landscape
    By soonerguru in forum Politics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-11-2014, 03:08 PM
  5. Recommend a Landscape designer/planner?
    By Celebrator in forum Edmond
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-26-2009, 09:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO