2024

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27117
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: 2024

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
Could you explain what you mean?
That this SCOTUS is not AS evil as some of the most hyperbolic on the left would claim?

They clearly have lost huge credibility and trust, for very clear reasons of a lack of basic ethics as applied to their own behaviors, and to their rather ridiculous claims of not being politicized, and hypocritical claims that judges shouldn't be "activists".

Do you disagree?
tech37
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:02 pm

Re: 2024

Post by tech37 »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:47 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
Could you explain what you mean?
That this SCOTUS is not AS evil as some of the most hyperbolic on the left would claim?

They clearly have lost huge credibility and trust, for very clear reasons of a lack of basic ethics as applied to their own behaviors, and to their rather ridiculous claims of not being politicized, and hypocritical claims that judges shouldn't be "activists".

Do you disagree?
I'm certain to disappoint... my opinion re SCOTUS could narrowly be described as agnostic to indifferent
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18882
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: 2024

Post by old salt »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 6:16 pm One part of the problem is the “but I like his policies” crowd. You see it here. People willing to see the country destroyed so their taxes are low. People willing to see the country ruined as long as someone supports their fear of LGBTQ people. The parties are not equivalent. It’s plain and clear that the GOP is taking us down the road to authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism in Iowa or democracy ?
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... 989888007/

Iowa Poll: Majorities support bans on gender-affirming care for kids, LGBTQ teaching limits

Ban on gender-affirming care for minors, soon to become law, wins majority support among Iowans
Majorities of parents say gender identity, sexual orientation shouldn’t be taught in K-6
Democrats, older Iowans don't approve of bans on teaching gender identity, sexual orientation

Majorities of Iowans support Republican legislation to restrict instruction on LGBTQ topics in schools and ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors, according to a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll.

Iowa Republicans began the 2023 legislative session with a flurry of LGBTQ-related bills, including several to restrict how teachers can discuss gender identity or sexual orientation.

Just before a key legislative deadline, lawmakers advanced another bill to prohibit transgender children from receiving gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and transition-related surgeries.

More than half of Iowa adults approve of the approach the GOP-dominated Iowa Legislature is taking on each of these key LGBTQ issues.

Fifty-four percent of Iowa adults say they favor bills that would ban teaching about gender identity, and the same percentage say they favor legislation banning instruction on sexual orientation. A slightly smaller majority, 52%, say they favor a ban on gender-affirming medical treatment for minors.

The poll of 805 Iowans was conducted March 5-8 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

The sudden emphasis on transgender-related issues in Iowa comes as red states across the country introduce similar bills to restrict medical options for transgender kids and to prohibit certain LGBTQ and “woke” concepts in schools.

Iowa lawmakers passed a bill last year to prohibit transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports. A 2022 Iowa Poll found that Iowans were sharply divided on that legislation.

Ban on gender-affirming care for minors, soon to become law, wins majority support among Iowans
Senate File 538 would prohibit Iowa doctors from prescribing puberty blockers, hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgery to transgender people under 18. The bill passed through both chambers of the Legislature and is ready to be signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds.

A majority of Iowans, 52%, support banning gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender or nonbinary minors. Forty-three percent of Iowans oppose the idea.

Fifty percent of Iowans with children under 18 favor the ban, with 44% opposed.

Newton resident Jonah Keeton, a 25-year-old Republican and father of two who responded to the poll, said he would “strongly, strongly oppose any kind of medical care relating to sexuality or gender identity for young children.”

“I think if any parent would give consent for that kind of a procedure for their young child, the parent isn't fit to be a parent in the first place and obviously is manipulating their child or actively doing harm to their child psychologically,” Keeton said.

Opponents of the bill in the Capitol and across the state say banning the care will negatively impact transgender kids who are already struggling.

Major American medical associations recommend allowing transgender minors to transition with access to appropriate care.

Democrat Abby Schmidt, a poll respondent and 37-year-old mom of four in Cedar Rapids, said she thinks people’s medical decisions with their doctors are “none of my business and it shouldn't be anybody else's.”

Schmidt said the legislation is a “terrible diversion” from other bills being passed to limit government accountability.

“It's unbelievable the amount of hate that is being branded as protecting children or looking out for their best interests when that’s not it,” she said.

The Iowa Poll found that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor a ban on gender-affirming care. More than two-thirds of Republicans, 68%, said the medical treatments should be prohibited for minors.

Democrats split the other way, with 67% saying gender-affirming treatments should not be banned for minors.

Majorities of parents say gender identity, sexual orientation shouldn’t be taught in K-6
There are several proposals on the move at the Iowa Capitol to restrict teachers from instruction on LGBTQ concepts in kindergarten through sixth grade.

The Iowa House on Wednesday passed House File 348, which prohibits any instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation in kindergarten through sixth grade.

It’s similar to a controversial Florida law that critics dubbed “Don’t Say Gay.” But Iowa’s proposal goes further, extending past Florida’s third-grade cap to sixth grade.

Fifty-four percent of Iowans say they support a ban on teaching about gender identity, the Iowa Poll found.

Also, 54% say they favor a ban on teaching about sexual orientation in kindergarten through sixth grade. In each case, 44% oppose the bills.

Iowans with children under 18 favor the policies at a slightly higher rate. Sixty percent say schools should prohibit teaching about gender identity through sixth grade, and 57% support a ban on teaching about sexual orientation for the same grade levels.

Poll respondent Pat Fisher, a 34-year-old father of three in Keota, said elementary school is too early to start talking about gender identity or anything relating to sexuality. Fisher, who is a Republican, said the topics haven’t come up for his kids attending the local public school.

“If I asked them if they knew what a transgender person was, they wouldn’t know that, because it’s not taught in our small town,” Fisher said. “But I think that, if that is being taught and kids are being forced to talk about those things, then maybe that’s where some of this transgender stuff is coming from, is being taught at such a young age.”

Alexis Nolte, a 27-year-old business owner and mom who answered the poll and identified as an independent, doesn’t think grade-school teachers should actively instruct on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Nolte said she favors the proposed ban, but she also wants flexibility for discussions that might come up naturally in a class.

“I don't think that it should be a closed conversation,” said Nolte, who lives in Dubuque. “Just maybe, you know, keep the parents informed of exactly what is being discussed.”

Democrats, older Iowans don't approve of bans on teaching gender identity, sexual orientation
Most Democrats don’t support the bills, with 77% opposing a ban on gender identity instruction and 80% opposing a ban on sexual orientation instruction for kindergarten through sixth grade.

A majority of older Iowans also opposed a ban on gender identity instruction in schools.

Fifty-three percent of Iowans aged 65 and older said they oppose a ban on discussions on gender identity in elementary schools. The same proportion said they oppose a ban regarding teaching of sexual orientation.

Karen Slessor, a 67-year-old Democrat living in Grandview who responded to the poll, said she believes Iowans should trust teachers to know what is appropriate for their students. She opposes the proposed legislation to ban sexual orientation and gender identity instruction from some grades.

Slessor said she doesn’t understand “all the hysteria” about teachers discussing LGBTQ topics.

“I don't think that translates into transforming anybody into something that you think they shouldn’t be,” she said. “I think kids are going to be who they're going to be, and they should be that.”

The Iowa Poll, conducted March 5-8, 2023, for The Des Moines Register and Mediacom by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, is based on telephone interviews with 805 Iowans ages 18 or older. Interviewers with Quantel Research contacted households with randomly selected landline and cell phone numbers supplied by Dynata.
Last edited by old salt on Mon Jun 26, 2023 9:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
tech37
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:02 pm

Re: 2024

Post by tech37 »

tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:57 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:47 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
Could you explain what you mean?
That this SCOTUS is not AS evil as some of the most hyperbolic on the left would claim?

They clearly have lost huge credibility and trust, for very clear reasons of a lack of basic ethics as applied to their own behaviors, and to their rather ridiculous claims of not being politicized, and hypocritical claims that judges shouldn't be "activists".

Do you disagree?
I'm certain to disappoint... my opinion re SCOTUS could narrowly be described as agnostic to indifferent
i was simply making an observation re bias.
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: 2024

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15481
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 2024

Post by cradleandshoot »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:16 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
This is probably not a realistic question but it sounds logical in my mind. In all federal elections ie.. presidential, Senate and congressional would it be feasible for the federal government to come up with a template or guidelines for all 50 states to adhere to? The states could then structure how they make this happen. It is probably not doable because it would interfere with local and state elections but it would level the playing field as to how national elections are conducted out of fairness to all citizens. The guidelines should be the same for New York state as they are for Alabama and so on.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: 2024

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:22 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:16 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
This is probably not a realistic question but it sounds logical in my mind. In all federal elections ie.. presidential, Senate and congressional would it be feasible for the federal government to come up with a template or guidelines for all 50 states to adhere to? The states could then structure how they make this happen. It is probably not doable because it would interfere with local and state elections but it would level the playing field as to how national elections are conducted out of fairness to all citizens. The guidelines should be the same for New York state as they are for Alabama and so on.
Oh, I think your question is plenty logical. We have the skills and computer-aided ability to make voting districts reasonably fair. Search around the Google-sphere for the Princeton and Stanford projects on this. The problem appears to be that when voting districts are fair, Democrats seem to win elections. And we can’t have that.
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: 2024

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

The SCOTUS just blocked Louisiana’s Congressional map, finding that the voting power of black voters was unlawfully diluted. Louisiana will now have to redraw its map and voting districts to add a second majority black district.
tech37
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:02 pm

Re: 2024

Post by tech37 »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:16 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
No biggy. Just thought you might give some credit to the Court for ruling in your favor. But true to form seems you've doubled down with your bias? So let's just rescind the House majority outcome based on your "fact and law"? What's next?
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: 2024

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:50 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:16 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
No biggy. Just thought you might give some credit to the Court for ruling in your favor. But true to form seems you've doubled down with your bias? So let's just rescind the House majority outcome based on your "fact and law"? What's next?
I do give the Court majority credit for stepping into this and taking what steps it could to rectify the dilution of people’s votes. I would think that any reasonable citizen would want to see fair districts and fair representation.

But, to be fair, this is the same Court that granted a stay to Alabama and allowed the election to go forward, the “winners” to be seated in Congress. I never said anything like “rescind the outcome.”

I may be taking this the wrong way, but you seem to be working to pick a fight over this. Not playing.
tech37
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:02 pm

Re: 2024

Post by tech37 »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:58 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:50 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:16 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
No biggy. Just thought you might give some credit to the Court for ruling in your favor. But true to form seems you've doubled down with your bias? So let's just rescind the House majority outcome based on your "fact and law"? What's next?
I do give the Court majority credit for stepping into this and taking what steps it could to rectify the dilution of people’s votes.
There you go.

I would think that any reasonable citizen would want to see fair districts and fair representation.
Of course.

But, to be fair, this is the same Court that granted a stay to Alabama and allowed the election to go forward, the “winners” to be seated in Congress. I never said anything like “rescind the outcome.”
Never said you did. I asked a question.

I may be taking this the wrong way, but you seem to be working to pick a fight over this.
Fight? Nope.
User avatar
NattyBohChamps04
Posts: 2824
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 pm

Re: 2024

Post by NattyBohChamps04 »

tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
Don't forget all the still legal gerrymandering reasons too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27117
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: 2024

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:57 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:47 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
Could you explain what you mean?
That this SCOTUS is not AS evil as some of the most hyperbolic on the left would claim?

They clearly have lost huge credibility and trust, for very clear reasons of a lack of basic ethics as applied to their own behaviors, and to their rather ridiculous claims of not being politicized, and hypocritical claims that judges shouldn't be "activists".

Do you disagree?
I'm certain to disappoint... my opinion re SCOTUS could narrowly be described as agnostic to indifferent
ok, so you think SCOTUS decisions have little or no impact on the world in which you, your loved ones, your friends, your community live?

Interesting, but fair enough if true of your opinion. Others obviously disagree.

Does that make them "biased"?

Does wanting decisions made to be fair, based on facts and law, not partisan interests make one "biased"?

Or is that actually "partisan"???
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15481
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 2024

Post by cradleandshoot »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:30 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:22 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:16 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
This is probably not a realistic question but it sounds logical in my mind. In all federal elections ie.. presidential, Senate and congressional would it be feasible for the federal government to come up with a template or guidelines for all 50 states to adhere to? The states could then structure how they make this happen. It is probably not doable because it would interfere with local and state elections but it would level the playing field as to how national elections are conducted out of fairness to all citizens. The guidelines should be the same for New York state as they are for Alabama and so on.
Oh, I think your question is plenty logical. We have the skills and computer-aided ability to make voting districts reasonably fair. Search around the Google-sphere for the Princeton and Stanford projects on this. The problem appears to be that when voting districts are fair, Democrats seem to win elections. And we can’t have that.
When voting districts are fair and honest then those long forgotten 25% of independent voters may decide to become involved in our election system again. Are you forgetting counselor about all of us who have become disillusioned with both parties for a very long time?
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15481
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 2024

Post by cradleandshoot »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:53 pm
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:57 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:47 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
Could you explain what you mean?
That this SCOTUS is not AS evil as some of the most hyperbolic on the left would claim?

They clearly have lost huge credibility and trust, for very clear reasons of a lack of basic ethics as applied to their own behaviors, and to their rather ridiculous claims of not being politicized, and hypocritical claims that judges shouldn't be "activists".

Do you disagree?
I'm certain to disappoint... my opinion re SCOTUS could narrowly be described as agnostic to indifferent
ok, so you think SCOTUS decisions have little or no impact on the world in which you, your loved ones, your friends, your community live?

Interesting, but fair enough if true of your opinion. Others obviously disagree.

Does that make them "biased"?

Does wanting decisions made to be fair, based on facts and law, not partisan interests make one "biased"?

Or is that actually "partisan"???
In light of some recent SCOTUS decisions are the conservatives on the court the fire breathing devils they have been portrayed as ad nauseum on this forum??
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27117
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: 2024

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:29 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:53 pm
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:57 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:47 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
Could you explain what you mean?
That this SCOTUS is not AS evil as some of the most hyperbolic on the left would claim?

They clearly have lost huge credibility and trust, for very clear reasons of a lack of basic ethics as applied to their own behaviors, and to their rather ridiculous claims of not being politicized, and hypocritical claims that judges shouldn't be "activists".

Do you disagree?
I'm certain to disappoint... my opinion re SCOTUS could narrowly be described as agnostic to indifferent
ok, so you think SCOTUS decisions have little or no impact on the world in which you, your loved ones, your friends, your community live?

Interesting, but fair enough if true of your opinion. Others obviously disagree.

Does that make them "biased"?

Does wanting decisions made to be fair, based on facts and law, not partisan interests make one "biased"?

Or is that actually "partisan"???
In light of some recent SCOTUS decisions are the conservatives on the court the fire breathing devils they have been portrayed as ad nauseum on this forum??
Some are... ;)
I dunno about "fire breathing devils" but definitely high partisan, activist right wing...

What was that vote?
why not 9-0?

Really should have been an easy 9-0.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27117
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: 2024

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:26 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:30 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:22 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:16 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
This is probably not a realistic question but it sounds logical in my mind. In all federal elections ie.. presidential, Senate and congressional would it be feasible for the federal government to come up with a template or guidelines for all 50 states to adhere to? The states could then structure how they make this happen. It is probably not doable because it would interfere with local and state elections but it would level the playing field as to how national elections are conducted out of fairness to all citizens. The guidelines should be the same for New York state as they are for Alabama and so on.
Oh, I think your question is plenty logical. We have the skills and computer-aided ability to make voting districts reasonably fair. Search around the Google-sphere for the Princeton and Stanford projects on this. The problem appears to be that when voting districts are fair, Democrats seem to win elections. And we can’t have that.
When voting districts are fair and honest then those long forgotten 25% of independent voters may decide to become involved in our election system again. Are you forgetting counselor about all of us who have become disillusioned with both parties for a very long time?
And that would be a good thing.
But my party, the GOP, opposes that happening, unfortunately.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15481
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 2024

Post by cradleandshoot »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:29 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:53 pm
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:57 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:47 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
Could you explain what you mean?
That this SCOTUS is not AS evil as some of the most hyperbolic on the left would claim?

They clearly have lost huge credibility and trust, for very clear reasons of a lack of basic ethics as applied to their own behaviors, and to their rather ridiculous claims of not being politicized, and hypocritical claims that judges shouldn't be "activists".

Do you disagree?
I'm certain to disappoint... my opinion re SCOTUS could narrowly be described as agnostic to indifferent
ok, so you think SCOTUS decisions have little or no impact on the world in which you, your loved ones, your friends, your community live?

Interesting, but fair enough if true of your opinion. Others obviously disagree.

Does that make them "biased"?

Does wanting decisions made to be fair, based on facts and law, not partisan interests make one "biased"?

Or is that actually "partisan"???
In light of some recent SCOTUS decisions are the conservatives on the court the fire breathing devils they have been portrayed as ad nauseum on this forum??
Some are... ;)
I dunno about "fire breathing devils" but definitely high partisan, activist right wing...

What was that vote?
why not 9-0?

Really should have been an easy 9-0.
They have been voting on a consistent basis that indicates they are not an activist far right wing court so many people were worried about.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15481
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 2024

Post by cradleandshoot »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:52 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:26 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:30 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:22 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:16 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
This is probably not a realistic question but it sounds logical in my mind. In all federal elections ie.. presidential, Senate and congressional would it be feasible for the federal government to come up with a template or guidelines for all 50 states to adhere to? The states could then structure how they make this happen. It is probably not doable because it would interfere with local and state elections but it would level the playing field as to how national elections are conducted out of fairness to all citizens. The guidelines should be the same for New York state as they are for Alabama and so on.
Oh, I think your question is plenty logical. We have the skills and computer-aided ability to make voting districts reasonably fair. Search around the Google-sphere for the Princeton and Stanford projects on this. The problem appears to be that when voting districts are fair, Democrats seem to win elections. And we can’t have that.
When voting districts are fair and honest then those long forgotten 25% of independent voters may decide to become involved in our election system again. Are you forgetting counselor about all of us who have become disillusioned with both parties for a very long time?
And that would be a good thing.
But my party, the GOP, opposes that happening, unfortunately.
Their task at hand is to win back that very large pool of independents like myself. This is a sidenote but my neighbor had stopped by the other day and we were having a beer in the garage. A gentleman was walking down our street and came up to talk to us. His name was Mark Assini who is running for Monroe County executive as a republican. He is the same republican who narrowly lost to Louise Slaughter for a congressional seat. He wound up talking to us for about a half an hour. He impressed the heck out of me. He is a republican that even you would admire. I liked his positive opinion. Everything he discussed was all positive. He had nothing bad to say about his opponent. He simply believes he can do a better job. Your party could use more people like him. If your curious, look him up.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15481
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: 2024

Post by cradleandshoot »

cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:22 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:52 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:26 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:30 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:22 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:16 am
tech37 wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:26 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm Postscript: so…the current House majority appears to have been ushered in by unlawful voting districts.
Don't forget all the legal gerrymandering too! Who doesn't want to be ruled by a superminority of voters?
What a dilemma when that evil SCOTUS rules in your favor. What's a true-believing partisan progressive to do?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, except to point out that I am biased. I confess you're right; I am biased in favor of making votes count. But the decision I was referencing made clear that (1) the voting districts adopted by the Alabama legislature was unlawful; (2) the voting districts unreasonably and unlawfully diluted the votes of black Alabama voters; and (3) those voting districts were nonetheless used during the 2022 midterms and resulted in GOP candidates winning. I don't think my bias comes into those conclusions of fact and law made by the Court.
This is probably not a realistic question but it sounds logical in my mind. In all federal elections ie.. presidential, Senate and congressional would it be feasible for the federal government to come up with a template or guidelines for all 50 states to adhere to? The states could then structure how they make this happen. It is probably not doable because it would interfere with local and state elections but it would level the playing field as to how national elections are conducted out of fairness to all citizens. The guidelines should be the same for New York state as they are for Alabama and so on.
Oh, I think your question is plenty logical. We have the skills and computer-aided ability to make voting districts reasonably fair. Search around the Google-sphere for the Princeton and Stanford projects on this. The problem appears to be that when voting districts are fair, Democrats seem to win elections. And we can’t have that.
When voting districts are fair and honest then those long forgotten 25% of independent voters may decide to become involved in our election system again. Are you forgetting counselor about all of us who have become disillusioned with both parties for a very long time?
And that would be a good thing.
But my party, the GOP, opposes that happening, unfortunately.
Their task at hand is to win back that very large pool of independents like myself. This is a sidenote but my neighbor had stopped by the other day and we were having a beer in the garage. A gentleman was walking down our street and came up to talk to us. His name was Mark Assini who is running for Monroe County executive as a republican. He is the same republican who narrowly lost to Louise Slaughter for a congressional seat. He wound up talking to us for about a half an hour. He impressed the heck out of me. He is a republican that even you would admire. I liked his positive opinion. Everything he discussed was all positive. He had nothing bad to say about his opponent. He simply believes he can do a better job. Your party could use more people like him. If your curious, look him up.
Just out of curiosity MD, have you ever run for political office?
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”