|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 27, 2023 16:57:58 GMT
I definitely don't want to get into a big back-and-forth political argument here, but I did feel like I ought to give carllove a real response after she asked me to look into the H. Biden issue. Frankly, I don't feel any differently. Shapiro was listing allegations from single sources that aren't corroborated, and he was spinning them to his side's benefit. It was no different in my mind than when more Democrat-oriented media was running with similar allegations against Pres. Trump (e.g., "the pee tape," or various other "THIS time it's serious!" claims that failed to be corroborated or amount to much). But what's more, the connection to Pres. Biden is even more tenuous. So it's more like if Don Jr. had allegations against him. For that matter, he did, and they were confirmed as true: the infamous Trump Tower meeting after some Russian was claiming to be able to help the Trump campaign. That was confirmed as real by Trump's own DOJ investigation, as opposed to this (SO FAR...which is important: so far) allegation still being just that. To be clear, I am not saying Hunter Biden shouldn't be investigated for claims against him. If the evidence of those investigations confirms claims against Pres. Biden, or raises new ones, those should be investigated, too. But right now, the vast majority of the claims are against Hunter, and even those are pretty sketchy. His plea deal fell apart, so the investigation continues. I don't mind that at all. I don't even doubt he's corrupt. I don't rule out that Pres. Biden is corrupt, either. But I am far from convinced. (In this case, I mean "corrupt" in a more serious way. I think in a looser definition, probably every single major politician is corrupt, and frankly most children of celebrities and the wealthy are corrupt.) Many of these allegations took place either when Biden was an outgoing VP who wasn't running for president and during the Trump administration. Prior to that, he'd mostly served as a moderate, very pro-business senator who could sell blue collar appeal to Democrats. He was never anything approaching a mastermind. Point being, he wasn't the power broker, or even the likely next power broker: he was a lame duck. (VPs aren't exactly power brokers to begin with. They are famously neutered from most official capacities.) So why would Ukraine or China even think he was the person to target? Sure, he'd be more valuable than, say, ME. But circa 2015, foreign agents would have been more likely to target Eric or Don Jr or Ivanka Trump; or some of the Bush family (let's remember, Jeb was considered a frontrunner), or for that matter, Chelsea Clinton. And really, would Pres. Biden (if he were heavily involved in some international corruption scheme) choose his crack-addict, whore-loving black sheep son as his representative in these things? Really? I don't think Pres. Biden is a mastermind (as I said), but neither is he that stupid. And if he were, how was he masterminding this profitable scheme? It reeks to me of the classic opposition mindset that everyone has: "your guy is a total and complete moron, a serious buffoon ... and he's masterminding a huge conspiracy that will take down the country." Both an evil genius and an incompetent. Dems did it to Bush II and Trump. GOPs do it now to Biden and to others. It's like throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. And regardless, the investigations into Hunter should be pursued until the process ends one way or the other. Even if he lands in prison, that doesn't mean impeach the president unless the evidence from the investigations points that way. Too long, I know. And frankly, rambling. But to sum up: to be talking impeachment at this point still strikes me as very premature, and I still strongly oppose it. And remember, that was my initial point: I think the talk of impeachment is wildly premature and clearly just about political optics, just as I thought impeachment of Trump was at least mostly for political optics. I think it's an attempt to distract from Trump's numerous, legitimate legal problems, and of course to win in '24. If real evidence, as discovered and corroborated through legit investigations, turns up likely actual lawbreaking or serious corruption on the president's end, go for it. Impeach. I'd vote to convict. But if it's just based on uncorroborated rumors being pushed only by political opponents, that's just not a reason to impeach and it does nothing but divide an already divided society even more. This whole "they tried to unfairly attack us with fake news because they're liars and schemers, but our allegations are TRUE and we're fighting the good, noble fight" stuff has got to stop.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Jul 27, 2023 17:58:11 GMT
I definitely don't want to get into a big back-and-forth political argument here, but I did feel like I ought to give carllove a real response after she asked me to look into the H. Biden issue. Frankly, I don't feel any differently. Shapiro was listing allegations from single sources that aren't corroborated, and he was spinning them to his side's benefit. It was no different in my mind than when more Democrat-oriented media was running with similar allegations against Pres. Trump (e.g., "the pee tape," or various other "THIS time it's serious!" claims that failed to be corroborated or amount to much). But what's more, the connection to Pres. Biden is even more tenuous. So it's more like if Don Jr. had allegations against him. For that matter, he did, and they were confirmed as true: the infamous Trump Tower meeting after some Russian was claiming to be able to help the Trump campaign. That was confirmed as real by Trump's own DOJ investigation, as opposed to this (SO FAR...which is important: so far) allegation still being just that. To be clear, I am not saying Hunter Biden shouldn't be investigated for claims against him. If the evidence of those investigations confirms claims against Pres. Biden, or raises new ones, those should be investigated, too. But right now, the vast majority of the claims are against Hunter, and even those are pretty sketchy. His plea deal fell apart, so the investigation continues. I don't mind that at all. I don't even doubt he's corrupt. I don't rule out that Pres. Biden is corrupt, either. But I am far from convinced. (In this case, I mean "corrupt" in a more serious way. I think in a looser definition, probably every single major politician is corrupt, and frankly most children of celebrities and the wealthy are corrupt.) Many of these allegations took place either when Biden was an outgoing VP who wasn't running for president and during the Trump administration. Prior to that, he'd mostly served as a moderate, very pro-business senator who could sell blue collar appeal to Democrats. He was never anything approaching a mastermind. Point being, he wasn't the power broker, or even the likely next power broker: he was a lame duck. (VPs aren't exactly power brokers to begin with. They are famously neutered from most official capacities.) So why would Ukraine or China even think he was the person to target? Sure, he'd be more valuable than, say, ME. But circa 2015, foreign agents would have been more likely to target Eric or Don Jr or Ivanka Trump; or some of the Bush family (let's remember, Jeb was considered a frontrunner), or for that matter, Chelsea Clinton. And really, would Pres. Biden (if he were heavily involved in some international corruption scheme) choose his crack-addict, whore-loving black sheep son as his representative in these things? Really? I don't think Pres. Biden is a mastermind (as I said), but neither is he that stupid. And if he were, how was he masterminding this profitable scheme? It reeks to me of the classic opposition mindset that everyone has: "your guy is a total and complete moron, a serious buffoon ... and he's masterminding a huge conspiracy that will take down the country." Both an evil genius and an incompetent. Dems did it to Bush II and Trump. GOPs do it now to Biden and to others. It's like throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. And regardless, the investigations into Hunter should be pursued until the process ends one way or the other. Even if he lands in prison, that doesn't mean impeach the president unless the evidence from the investigations points that way. Too long, I know. And frankly, rambling. But to sum up: to be talking impeachment at this point still strikes me as very premature, and I still strongly oppose it. And remember, that was my initial point: I think the talk of impeachment is wildly premature and clearly just about political optics, just as I thought impeachment of Trump was at least mostly for political optics. I think it's an attempt to distract from Trump's numerous, legitimate legal problems, and of course to win in '24. If real evidence, as discovered and corroborated through legit investigations, turns up likely actual lawbreaking or serious corruption on the president's end, go for it. Impeach. I'd vote to convict. But if it's just based on uncorroborated rumors being pushed only by political opponents, that's just not a reason to impeach and it does nothing but divide an already divided society even more. This whole "they tried to unfairly attack us with fake news because they're liars and schemers, but our allegations are TRUE and we're fighting the good, noble fight" stuff has got to stop. It's amazing how my political views almost always mirror yours. I was going to reply about the moron/mastermind aspect, but then I got to the part where you already did! I don't want to get too personal because we all get along so well, but carllove's comments make me reflect on what you and kds have said about the divide in our country. How can we heal the divide people like Ben Shapiro are making people believe Biden is treasonous and selling out our country to China? I don't see the divide ever healing because politics has just become another type of sport where you root for your team to win above all else. There's too much media to go around that will get you sucked into a rabbit hole vs the old days of a few cable news channels.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 27, 2023 18:05:42 GMT
I also do want to make clear, I don't mean this to insult carllove at all. (Plus I know she's a grown-up, she can take disagreement as well as I can.) While I am definitely a liberal in the grand sense of the word, and I even lean left, I've also got plenty of both conservative and libertarian leanings. And I've got no love whatsoever for either party, or their propaganda-media arms. So even if I am coming down harder in this example on one side than the other, I think you'll note I tend to do my best to be fair to all sides and call things pretty consistently. Or at least I try to. In the end, I like citizens far more than I like media conglomerates and their political wings.
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Jul 28, 2023 13:04:27 GMT
I also do want to make clear, I don't mean this to insult carllove at all. (Plus I know she's a grown-up, she can take disagreement as well as I can.) While I am definitely a liberal in the grand sense of the word, and I even lean left, I've also got plenty of both conservative and libertarian leanings. And I've got no love whatsoever for either party, or their propaganda-media arms. So even if I am coming down harder in this example on one side than the other, I think you'll note I tend to do my best to be fair to all sides and call things pretty consistently. Or at least I try to. In the end, I like citizens far more than I like media conglomerates and their political wings. No worries Kapitan! We are all entitled to our opinions here and I appreciate you taking the time to listen to Mr. Shapiro. The fact that the Biden’s had so many shell corporations with no discernible product other than influence to sell, and money to launder, just disturbs me. Also the electronic trail of gps, texts, email and phone records seems to corroborate the accounts of the whistleblowers. It just feels to me like Hunter and Joe were working like the mafia, shaking down foreigners with government ties, for the product of influence of our own government. The Chinese are our enemy, but they sure seemed to like to work with Hunter. While most of the alleged events occurred prior to Joe becoming President, you can’t tell me that all of the money his family received from The Ukraine, did not influence the amount of money our country is currently shoveling into that country. I don’t think Trump is totally innocent, either, but I don’t think he is a traitor. He is just an arrogant ass. I’m just not fond of most politicians at this moment. They only seem to serve themselves. That’s why I’d love someone like Ramaswamy to get at least a VP nomination. It’s also time for all of the geriatrics to make room for Gen X. I’m technically a Boomer and frankly looking forward to retirement. Too many folks in our government that should have retired 10 or even 20 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 28, 2023 13:14:55 GMT
A couple quick things (straying off the original point, which I think we've beaten sufficiently to death!).
Shell corporations: totally agree with the point at some level, but I'd just note those are EVERYWHERE among our business class. The Trump family, for example, is full of them as well. I'm sure the Clintons and Bushes are. But also, for example, I can just point to my own company, which is owned by what amounts to a shell corporation, which is owned by another one, etc. It's a huge, complex web of companies, mostly having been created to facilitate various transactions and mergers. That, in and of itself, isn't illegal or necessarily unethical, but the complexities (and privacy involved) are part of what makes it so easy to take and hide illegal actions with them. Plus, either to create and use, or investigate, them takes high-powered attorneys, i.e., money. Lots of money. As with most things, the benefits are available to the rich. (And the IRS disproportionately focuses on easier and cheaper cases, meaning the little guys like us.)
Trump: I agree he's more ass than traitor. I'm not sure he's what you'd call a patriot, either (and for that matter I'm not sure patriotism is exactly a prerequisite anyway), but more a Trumpian. He's the ultimate Trumpian. My impression is truly that he is mostly pro-Trump, before anything else, and all of his messaging (most of which--basically every single point other than wanting to restrict immigration and harshly punish illegal drug users/dealers--has changed with the wind, sometimes within the same speeches) is just intended to get his way more than demonstrate any principles or beliefs. In fact, I don't think many of our high-level politicians are either what I'd call patriots or traitors. I think most of them are egotistical, ambitious, wannabe bosses who ironically are spineless and used on their "ascent" to the top, manipulated by their parties and constituencies to do as they're told.
Generational change: could not agree more. It's not that I am ageist: to be clear, I respect my elders tremendously and believe very much in wisdom as something built over time from experience. But octogenarians should not be running the country: for all the wisdom they might have, they simply (statistically) can't possibly relate to or understand the world as it is and as it will be, or even be counted on to be physically capable to keep up those workloads...especially with all the time they have to commit to fundraising! (Their main job, after all...)
I'm very hesitant to say there should be strict age limits, but I do suspect a sweet spot for governors, congresspeople, senators, and presidents is latter 40s through lower 60s.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 28, 2023 15:30:49 GMT
I'm sorry to keep posting political stuff--I've truly been largely avoiding it the past couple of years, and don't plan to dive in again too hard, frankly, but the past few days things just keep popping up--but I found this interview between the ex-Obama staffers' popular Pod Save America podcast and former governor, current GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie, interesting.
As you'd expect, it focuses a lot on Trump. Now, you all know how I feel about Trump, and frankly I can't imagine voting for Christie, either. (He seems better in retrospect, which seems true of most politicians: as time goes on, the new "villains" seem worse than the old ones and we pine for the good ol' days [that didn't feel so good at the time].)
But what I like here is Christie's obvious intelligence and his willingness to both criticize former Pres. Trump AND the interviewer who is clearly trying to either make Christie look bad or get him to agree with Democratic narratives. Christie is very good here at saying "that is a different question," or "if you review the context of what I said, it is clear it was about [xyz]."
Frankly I can't stand and almost never listen to Pod Save America, because it's the same kind of show as Ben Shapiro's show or any number of other political shows--just more broadly likable because those are so-called cool guys on "the right team." I hate cheerleading, I hate snark in political shows, I hate posturing, and I hate loyalty to a party or tribe going above facts or above goodness. So I truly enjoy Christie pushing back respectfully but forcefully. (And I hate the interviewer and his numerous "hmmpf" noises after he is contradicted, as if to imply "well, you're wrong [about what you said or meant], and we all know that, but I'm too good a person to push you on it here and now." I know that is my own inference, but that's how it comes across to me: condescending and snarky.)
I don't think Christie has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the '24 GOP primary, and I doubt seriously whether his anti-Trump campaign is going to do much damage to Trump. (It will be the courts and/or the eventual general election that beat him, if he is beaten.) But I just enjoy hearing nuance, and on-your-feet thinking.
EDIT - I really enjoy the couple of minutes beginning at 1:11:56 or so, and going through the question and Christie's answer. Really, that 2 minutes sums up what I like about the interview. (Doesn't matter who I agree with on the principles, or politics. It's the approaches I'm highlighting. The host is playing to his audience, and Christie--admittedly probably playing to his--won't play.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 5, 2023 14:22:39 GMT
This story caught my attention: people around the NBA (players, the players' union, media, fans) are upset that the Orlando Magic donated $50k to a pro-DeSantis Super PAC. www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/38128912/nbpa-says-50k-gift-alarming-ron-desantis-commentsThe substance of the complaints is basically that the donation to DeSantis doesn't align with the majority of the (largely black) team in a largely black league. What I would say first is, what would you expect? The team is owned by the DeVos family, from which Betsy DeVos was a member of Donald Trump's cabinet. What's more, pro sports owners are by definition insanely rich. Rich people historically vote for politicians who favor tax cuts for the rich, which has been a Republican position for several decades. There should be no surprise that they would put their support there. If anything, it could be a mild surprise that it was to DeSantis as opposed to Trump (because of Betsy). (That said, Trump cycles through allies rapidly. Betsy may have been among those who disowned him in the wake of Jan. 6, or at another time. How many cabinet members and advisors did he burn through? A lot. Either he is uniquely bad at selecting associates, or [more likely] his associates don't realize what they're getting in to until they work with him.) But this is also part of what makes me hate the Citizens United decision before the Supreme Court back in 2010 or so. It is the decision that allowed entities like corporations to donate to political campaigns and causes. I dislike that decision for a few reasons. One is, the last thing we need is more money in politics, because money in politics goes toward advertising, which is to say, propaganda. That's the nonsense we're flooded with 24/7/365 already. We don't need more of it, especially considering how corrosive and divisive it all is. The second is, of course the players are correct that the owners' donations don't necessarily align with their own. Just as if Target were to make donations, or Wal-Mart, or whoever, there are obvious political divides between uber-rich owners and run-of-the-mill workers. (If anything, players are more like owners than they are employees, being unbelievably wealthy, too. If not for the racial disparity, I suspect they'd actually more closely align with ownership.) It's just a bad idea to make political donations on behalf of an entity when that entity isn't behind the cause/politician. It leads to things like this. But I care far more about "regular" companies, because those players will be fine regardless. A $15-an-hour shelf-stocker somewhere has very few options, so it's extra salt in his or her wounds to donate "on his/her behalf." Lastly, this just occurred to me: I'll bet progressives will increasingly support Citizens United, this particular case and the past 13 years notwithstanding. The reason is, more companies are taking progressive stances in public, betting that it will be financially beneficial to them. We already see activists pressuring companies to support abortion rights, Pride month activities and events, various social causes. Younger people apparently want to see their values reflected by their employers. And no politician or activist organization is going to say no to money. With the shift in the Democratic party from a working class party to an educated and elite party, I fully expect that they're going to be increasingly demanding businesses donate to their politicians and causes. The opposite of what I'd like to see (which is far less money in politics and the depoliticization of as many aspects of life as possible).
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 5, 2023 14:56:42 GMT
I'll admit to never really educating myself on this issue. But it sort of seems like common sense to me that corporations shouldn't be making these political contributions. If the DeVos family wants to contribute $50,000 to DeSantis, then write a personal check. I do wonder, though, if even then there should be a limit/cap. Yes, how libertarian of me, but should richer people really have more influence over who is elected than anyone else? Like I said, I've never really delved into the money in politics issue beyond the most basic understanding. Edit: After a few seconds of research, I see there are limits. Maybe I'll have to look into this, unless someone wants to bail me out.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 5, 2023 15:28:28 GMT
I'll admit to never really educating myself on this issue. But it sort of seems like common sense to me that corporations shouldn't be making these political contributions. If the DeVos family wants to contribute $50,000 to DeSantis, then write a personal check. I do wonder, though, if even then there should be a limit/cap. Yes, how libertarian of me, but should richer people really have more influence over who is elected than anyone else? Like I said, I've never really delved into the money in politics issue beyond the most basic understanding. Edit: After a few seconds of research, I see there are limits. Maybe I'll have to look into this, unless someone wants to bail me out. I don't know a TON, but I do know that there are ways around the limits. The main way around them I'm aware of is with Super PACs. They can accept unlimited amounts from anyone (including entities like corporations or individuals). However, the nuance is that they can't officially coordinate with campaigns. That said, anyone who doesn't think they coordinate...well, c'mon. But I really don't think entities should be allowed to participate, for reasons stated above. It should be personal, and candidates should have to disclose all contributors. As for limits on that, I'm very hesitant to say what they ought to be, even though I really, really, really wish everyone would simultaneously deescalate with respect to political spending. If you think about it, a political campaign ought not be remotely expensive. Getting your ideas out to the public--especially considering media coverage, but even without it because of the internet--is virtually free, relatively speaking. Does anyone think in the weeks leading up to campaigns, "damn, I just can't seem to find out anything about any candidates--there's just no information out there!" It is a ridiculous bubble that makes a fortune for propagandists/consultants/marketers, a fortune for media companies through their ad sales, and divides people unnecessarily by (by design, almost by definition) exaggerating differences and painting opposition in the worst possible way, usually as stupid or more often, evil.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 5, 2023 19:32:43 GMT
So, in effect, there aren't limits. Individuals and all sorts of entities, such as, nonprofits, LLCs, and corporations, can contribute unlimited amounts with limited public disclosure of donors. Nice...
Interesting, but frustrating, topic. Back to the story, I don't have any issue with people in the NBA (particularly, employees of the Orlando Magic) criticizing the contribution. It's a legitimate issue. It's bad policy.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 7, 2023 12:58:41 GMT
Another sign of strange days.
We have people in this country who call themselves "patriots" who were filled with glee that the Unites States Women's Team lost in the World Cup over the weekend. I recall one or two of them kneeled for the National Anthem, back when that was trendy like six years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 8, 2023 12:53:51 GMT
There's a controversial issue in Ohio on the ballot for a special election August 8th. Titled issue 1, it raises the requirement to amend the constitution to 60% to pass. Now that by itself isn't a huge deal and I might even be swayed to agree to it, but it also includes two other parts that I think/hope will ultimately sink it. Currently, you are required to get signatures from 44 counties and if there are non-allowable signatures, you don't need to start over. If it passes, you will be required to get 5% of the population to sign from each of the 88 counties. The next part is a little unclear to me, but it sounds like if there is one bad signature in one county, it voids all of the other signatures in that county and you'll have to start over. Even the date is controversial, as the same people pushing this last decided last year to end special elections because of low voter turnout. They've also been sending out flyers saying out of state interests are trying to meddle in Ohio politics, but it's being funded by someone rich guy from Illinois. The ridiculousness doesn't stop there. Our secretary of state was caught saying it's solely on the ballot to keep the "extreme abortion amendment off of the ballot" (nothing about it is extreme). There's also propaganda out there about it protecting your gun rights. There's a new ad as of a couple days ago about how voting yes will protect your daughter from trans people and their agenda of reading to kids and dressing in drag at school. Just a lot of disgusting lies and why even though I don't even consider myself liberal, I'll likely never vote republican on a state and national level. This is how the ones who make it to the general election think to varying degrees and I'm ultimately going to put human rights above anything else. Today is the day. I noticed this special election is getting some national coverage: I heard an NPR story on it and am now reading an NYT story on it. The latter quoted the secretary of state as The Cincinnati Kid mentioned, talking about the reason for the proposed change: Personally, I really despise procedural changes made to advance current political positions. (Other examples would be Democrats pushing to add justices to the Supreme Court to bolster liberal opinions; or my neighbor Wisconsin having made myriad changes including weakening the governor back when former Gov. Scott Walker was a lame duck to their current Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.) Changing rules mid-game to win isn't really winning. Any group of 10-year-olds on the playground can tell you that. Edit - by the way, I don't really feel strongly about the 60% threshold. While Minnesota has a simple majority requirement for constitutional amendments, let's keep in mind that the U.S. requires two-thirds of both House and Senate, then ratification by three-fourths of states. So 60% isn't wildly restrictive. (I don't know about other states. Maybe it is unique among states.) It's the timing, the obvious political positioning. I'm also pretty suspicious about the requirements to get questions on the ballot.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Aug 8, 2023 13:58:36 GMT
There's a controversial issue in Ohio on the ballot for a special election August 8th. Titled issue 1, it raises the requirement to amend the constitution to 60% to pass. Now that by itself isn't a huge deal and I might even be swayed to agree to it, but it also includes two other parts that I think/hope will ultimately sink it. Currently, you are required to get signatures from 44 counties and if there are non-allowable signatures, you don't need to start over. If it passes, you will be required to get 5% of the population to sign from each of the 88 counties. The next part is a little unclear to me, but it sounds like if there is one bad signature in one county, it voids all of the other signatures in that county and you'll have to start over. Even the date is controversial, as the same people pushing this last decided last year to end special elections because of low voter turnout. They've also been sending out flyers saying out of state interests are trying to meddle in Ohio politics, but it's being funded by someone rich guy from Illinois. The ridiculousness doesn't stop there. Our secretary of state was caught saying it's solely on the ballot to keep the "extreme abortion amendment off of the ballot" (nothing about it is extreme). There's also propaganda out there about it protecting your gun rights. There's a new ad as of a couple days ago about how voting yes will protect your daughter from trans people and their agenda of reading to kids and dressing in drag at school. Just a lot of disgusting lies and why even though I don't even consider myself liberal, I'll likely never vote republican on a state and national level. This is how the ones who make it to the general election think to varying degrees and I'm ultimately going to put human rights above anything else. Today is the day. I noticed this special election is getting some national coverage: I heard an NPR story on it and am now reading an NYT story on it. The latter quoted the secretary of state as The Cincinnati Kid mentioned, talking about the reason for the proposed change: Personally, I really despise procedural changes made to advance current political positions. (Other examples would be Democrats pushing to add justices to the Supreme Court to bolster liberal opinions; or my neighbor Wisconsin having made myriad changes including weakening the governor back when former Gov. Scott Walker was a lame duck to their current Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.) Changing rules mid-game to win isn't really winning. Any group of 10-year-olds on the playground can tell you that. Edit - by the way, I don't really feel strongly about the 60% threshold. While Minnesota has a simple majority requirement for constitutional amendments, let's keep in mind that the U.S. requires two-thirds of both House and Senate, then ratification by three-fourths of states. So 60% isn't wildly restrictive. (I don't know about other states. Maybe it is unique among states.) It's the timing, the obvious political positioning. I'm also pretty suspicious about the requirements to get questions on the ballot. I also got some clarification on the signature part. It requires 5% of the population in all 88 counties to sign compared to 44 counties as of today. Currently, if there's not enough signatures, you have 10 days to rectify it. If this passes, if any one of the 88 counties drops below 5%, all signatures are thrown out and you have to start over. I'll be stunned if this gets anywhere near close to passing.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 9, 2023 0:58:53 GMT
Looks like about 65% voted no, so the rule change failed. I’m glad it did. It’s an interesting topic, though. Ohio is one of only 17 states to allow citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. NJ does not. 60% actually sounds more reasonable to me than 50%. But other stipulations (e.g. based on voter turnout, etc.) could balance things out. If it weren’t for the obviously bad faith motivation, and the other changes making it harder to get proposed amendments on the ballot, I wonder if voters would support a 60% threshold. I’d guess probably not. That most people would just see that as losing power, but it protects you from being overruled by 50% +1. That said, a quick look at other states shows simple majority isn’t uncommon (both for citizen-initiated and legislative amendments).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 9, 2023 14:39:59 GMT
You know what's funny (or sad)? Minnesota had its primary elections yesterday. Obviously it's not a big year, neither presidential nor congressional races are on the ballot. It's a lot of city council, etc, kinds of things.
But the Star Tribune had stories on the Ohio ballot initiative, on other national election things, but not a word that I could find on our own primaries. Neither did I notice any lead-up to the election in the paper, no summaries of races or candidates. And as unsexy as city council is, those are the elections (and subsequent decisions) that more often have more direct impact on our lives than things like presidents or senators do.
|
|