All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[worstblogever]

They're not scared because they don't think he'll win the nomination.



I'm in California, so it doesn't matter if I vote or not but I will still vote for the nominee.

Don't evade the question.

Will you support the nominee, or will you s*** talk them online for months after the primary about how "Bernie would be better?" and then begrudgingly casting a vote?

Because, and stop me if this sounds crazy... could deter people in swing states from voting for the Democratic nominee, were you to do that. Like Bernie supporters did in 2016, for example.

[Superbat]

Don't evade the question.

Will you support the nominee, or will you s*** talk them online for months after the primary about how "Bernie would be better?" and then begrudgingly casting a vote?

Because, and stop me if this sounds crazy... could deter people in swing states from voting for the Democratic nominee, were you to do that. Like Bernie supporters did in 2016, for example.

If you're asking me if I'm not going to criticize the candidate at all, the answer is no.

But I will tell others to vote for the nominee, argue for why they should be President and phonebank for the nominee like I did for Hillary in 2016.

When Bernie becomes the nominee, are you going the rest of the election cycle without saying anything negative about Bernie? That seems excessive.

[Jack Dracula]

I know you and many other Hillary supporters are upset about her losing in 2016. I am too, it gave us Trump.

But you're going to have to make your peace with Bernie. He's going to be the nominee.

And I believe everyone here will vote for him if he becomes the nominee, so dial back the fanaticism a little bit. It's annoying and frankly, it helps prove some peoples points about certain Sanders supporters.

[Superbat]

I understand the frustration of the anti-Bernie people. I really do.

They've spend the last 4 years insulting him and his supporters. After 4 years of calling Bernie and supporters sexist, calling them unhinged and crazy, saying Bernie is useless and won't be able to get anything done, and blaming us for Hilary losing in 2016, they are going to have to start talking Bernie up against the Republicans and become part of the support base that they've been insulting.

But I promise, Bernie's nomination can be a fresh start. As long as you're ready to work towards a better future, we'll welcome you with open arms.

[jetengine]

I understand the frustration of the anti-Bernie people. I really do.

They've spend the last 4 years insulting him and his supporters. After 4 years of calling Bernie and supporters sexist, calling them unhinged and crazy, saying Bernie is useless and won't be able to get anything done, and blaming us for Hilary losing in 2016, they are going to have to start talking Bernie up against the Republicans and become part of the support base that they've been insulting.

But I promise, Bernie's nomination can be a fresh start. As long as you're ready to work towards a better future, we'll welcome you with open arms.

Woof, your trolling is on point sir. Little less cult like though, your giving the game away.

[Superbat]

And I believe everyone here will vote for him if he becomes the nominee, so dial back the fanaticism a little bit. It's annoying and frankly, it helps prove some peoples points about certain Sanders supporters.

I believe that too.

People should start working on their feelings about Sanders now. Not for his sake, but their own.

[Superbat]

Woof, your trolling is on point sir. Little less cult like though, your giving the game away.

I'm not trolling but maybe I am laying it on too thick.

What I want to say is that after Bernie wins the nomination, we aren't going to be conceited about it. We know it's going to take everyone we can get to beat Trump and the Republicans, so the past is the past. As long as you're with Bernie in the general election, all the stuff that was said in the past can be forgotten.

[worstblogever]

If you're asking me if I'm not going to criticize the candidate at all, the answer is no.

But I will tell others to vote for the nominee, argue for why they should be President and phonebank for the nominee like I did for Hillary in 2016.

When Bernie becomes the nominee, are you going the rest of the election cycle without saying anything negative about Bernie? That seems excessive.

If Bernie becomes the nominee, then YES. You STFU and help the Democratic nominee win.

Jesus Christ, what is so complicated about that concept?

[Superbat]

If Bernie becomes the nominee, then YES. You STFU and help the Democratic nominee win.

Jesus Christ, what is so complicated about that concept?

I will help him win, like I tried to with Hillary in 2016.

I won't pretend they are perfect.

How would you even do that? If someone links you to your posts calling Bernie toothless, are you going to tell them you were wrong?

[shooshoomanjoe]

I thought Bernie bros are criticizing "vote blue no matter who".

[Mister Mets]

I don't care what happens in Washington or Mississippi. Hence why a national day makes the most sense. We cant fix or cure each state's idiosynchrosies but we can allow for broader opportunity for civil engagement. There is no downside but fear of political fallout.

That fallout, whatever it is, would be a truer reflection of what our nation believes anyway.

There are obviously downsides. Whatever method there is of implementing a national election day is going to have some tradeoffs.

"But... Primaries!"

That's the whole foundation of Mets and his reasoning against making Election Day a paid holiday. State primaries ARE eclectic and some states have stranger policies than others, but at least with a national holiday for Election Day, it would make things easier in the grand scheme. We'd solve the primary issue on their terms, so, again, I fail to see the problem besides "PRIMARIES!" It's a straw man argument.

The discussion here kicked off with an article about a policy Sandusky, Ohio had for its 250 municipal employees, so while there is a way to make election day a national holiday, local policies remain quite relevant.

It would also seem likely that this would be done in more states and localities before it becomes a national holiday.

It's also worth noting that federal holidays only apply to federal employees and residents of DC. The states each get to determine what constitutes a legal holiday.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41990.pdf

The only places where it would matter to make the primaries a holiday are districts where candidates routinely run unopposed in November, making the primary the de-facto real election. But you can't always know ahead of time if the candidate of the dominant party will run unopposed.

The primary is the de-facto real election in many areas where opposition is token at best. When my congresswoman has Republican opponents, she wins by a 2:1 margin, so it doesn't really change her odds relative to when Republicans opt not to bother with a sacrificial lamb.

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with parties being strong in particular districts. For most of the country's history, there were areas where parties went unchallenged, and it does make sense that one of the parties may appeal more to particular communities.

I like this post, but I especially lile the simple point of this: why not both? But first, let's focus on addressing the whole nation before we dive into every state's weirdness.

Shielding the logic of a national holiday behind some unclear primary complaint is a strawman. Flimsy one at that.

I have no problem with the "why not both" argument.

However, if the plans only apply to Election Day that makes me suspect that it's more about the hope of partisan gain than meaningful participation. It'll be too late to make a difference in the majority of elections, where the winner is known on November 1.

[Mister Mets]

I will help him win, like I tried to with Hillary in 2016.

I won't pretend they are perfect.

How would you even do that? If someone links you to your posts calling Bernie toothless, are you going to tell them you were wrong?

So he should say something he believes to be untrue, lest anyone link to his commentary about a flawed candidate? It seems there's an easy answer if someone brings up old posts, to note that a candidate better in ones mind than the general election alternative.

Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation
The article is interesting but a bit messy.

There's the argument that we need greater equal representation because the federal government has great power: it can levy personal income taxes, change the definition of marriage, and penalize the failure to purchase health insurance. But many conservatives would counter that this shows why we need Supreme Court justices who don't believe the federal government should have that power (this is not my position, but seems to be an opening in the article.)

I'd also imagine that when congress passes laws that don't have majority support, it's not because of small state Senators. Delaware and Utah aren't the reason paid parental leave hasn't passed.

There are also some bad faith arguments. For example, they make a big deal of the Democrats winning the popular vote in the Senate when the majority of the difference was that the runoff in the most populated state was between two Democrats.

I'm not clear on how many states they plan to carve Washington DC, which would be in the bottom three in terms of population, into.

I do think there is an argument for changing the Senate to be more like the British House of Lords. I've probably argued for the Wyoming Rule before as a way to determine limits on house districts.









Note this this got quite a lot of negative blow-back on twitter.

[Malvolio]

I will help him win, like I tried to with Hillary in 2016.

I won't pretend they are perfect.

How would you even do that? If someone links you to your posts calling Bernie toothless, are you going to tell them you were wrong?

No, he can tell them to put aside the criticism for now, and save it until after the election. Some people think they can't vote for a candidate whom they've criticized, but what they really should do is examine the candidate to see if they're the type of candidate who can take constructive criticism and learn from it, like Bernie Sanders does, or if they're the type of candidate who sees any critic as the enemy, like Donald Trump does.

[worstblogever]

I will help him win, like I tried to with Hillary in 2016.

I won't pretend they are perfect.

How would you even do that? If someone links you to your posts calling Bernie toothless, are you going to tell them you were wrong?

No, but I can say, "At least I don't believe he will actively damage this country, like Trump. Maybe he'll surprise me and get something done that isn't renaming a post office."

[Superbat]

No, he can tell them to put aside the criticism for now, and save it until after the election. Some people think they can't vote for a candidate whom they've criticized, but what they really should do is examine the candidate to see if they're the type of candidate who can take constructive criticism and learn from it, like Bernie Sanders does, or if they're the type of candidate who sees any critic as the enemy, like Donald Trump does.

That makes sense.

There are things about the candidate I don't like, but the priority is to defeat Trump.