1. #29551

    Default


    In 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and as well as 2020, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of Iowa State Senator Brad Zaun, a man with a record of stalking an ex-girlfriend, by banging on her windows to call her a slut, and a reputation for being so obnoxious that in spite of him winning the primary for Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District in the 2014 elections, the GOP used a rare technicality that he did not exceed the 35% threshold of votes, so they just gave the win to current Congressman David Young, who finished in fifth. Zaun believes life starts at conception, that climate change doesn’t exist, that gay couples shouldn’t marry, and somehow presents terrible math to claim the Affordable Care Act costs double what it actually does. Brad Zaun also turned heads when he defended his carrying a firearm into the Iowa state capitol, saying that he “didn’t want to end up like Gabby Giffords”, which is a really distasteful comparison (especially because Giffords wasn’t shot in a capitol building).

    In 2018, Brad Zaun voted for two separate fetal heartbeat bills, which would effectively ban abortion at six weeks, a time when most women don’t even yet realize they’re pregnant. That’s right, not once, but twice.

    Zaun won re-election in 2020 with but 51% of the vote, meaning that barring any sudden resignation or shuffling off of the mortal coil, he will be in office until at least 2024.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  2. #29552
    Ultimate Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    Some rage-dumpsters don't know when to quit.
    You'll get to unretire his profile! <3

  3. #29553
    Ultimate Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,330

    Default

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ortion-clinics

    least 10 US states have siphoned millions of dollars from federal block grants, meant to provide aid to their neediest families, to pay for the operations of ideological anti-abortion clinics.

    These overwhelmingly Republican-led states used money from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (Tanf), better known as welfare or direct cash aid, to fund the activities of anti-abortion clinics associated with the evangelical right. The clinics work to dissuade women from obtaining abortions.

    In all cases, the states used these funds even as Covid-19 caused the worst economic upheaval in nearly a century, left one in four families without enough to eat, and resulted in mass layoffs that had a disproportionate effect on low-income and racial minority Americans.

  4. #29554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    You'll get to unretire his profile! <3
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  5. #29555
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    31,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    Remember how we noted in December, Oregon state legislator Mike Nearman (GQP) opened what was supposed to be a secure door open for right-wing loons to burst into the building and get into a confrontation with Oregon Capitol police, almost a foreshadowing of what could happen in DC weeks later?

    Oh, that s*** was pre-meditated. Here's video of Mike Nearman literally laying the plan out in detail to the anti-union nuts who burst in.
    Unbelievable! And he wasn't arrested for what he had done?
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  6. #29556
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Kyrsten Sinema was no more on the radar of voters in GA than any other Dem caucus, i.e. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer. i.e. "without Sanders in the Senate, voters may have been less motivated to go for Warnock and Ossoff", "without Warren in the Senate, voters may have been less motivated to go for Warnock and Ossoff", "without Schumer in the Senate, voters may have been less motivated to go for Warnock and Ossoff". It's a meaningless statement, and Mad Libs logic.

    The reason voters voted in large numbers was because so much was at stake. If the GOP cooled temperatures, if you had GOP senators and candidates strike a more moderate and conciliatory tone, if GOP senators passed legislation that actually brought things around in GA during the Trump era, that might not have motivated people as much, that they would have much to lose with any increase of GOP power which unfortunately is the case right now. So again perhaps it's your party and your ideology you need to look to. Conservatives used to be good at reassuring centrist voters and the apathetic voters that their lives and way of life isn't at stake at the ballot.
    Now they are proudly claiming the opposite, i.e. that they well make America more and more fascist, and that guarantees that outside the hardliners, people (rightly) hate the GOP and all that it stands for today.



    The point is that in the runoff election in 2020-2021 it was a simple -- "vote Warnock and Ossoff = Senate Majority Dems". The equation was that simple and clear, whereas the math in 2018 wasn't that simple.



    What me and most observers, backed by data are saying is, that the defining story in 2020 was higher voter turnout among both parties in an election that saw very little vote-splitting in a time when "undecided" voters had shrunk in numbers compared to previous elections and in a year conducive to higher voting by mail and in-person on account of the pandemic.



    2020 wasn't like previous elections. Biden lost the classic bellwether swing states (Ohio, Florida) and 18 of the 19 bellwether counties (Callam County, WA being the only one with its batting average still standing) and he still won with a sizable majority (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...r-counties-go/). That suggests the shrinking of centrist and undecided voters with higher turnout, rather than them playing a particular role in the election. That also supports the general view that vote-splitting and GOP voters for Biden, or Lincoln Project quixotism, was extremely marginal and minor in the overall scheme of things.



    I said the Cuban Missile Crisis specifically and not the Cold War. In the same way I referred to January 06 and not Trump's whole presidency.

    If we want to fudge the issue, I can point out that half a million Americans died thanks to Trump and his policies, with DJT killing far more Americans than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam, Osama, combined, and greater than them all by a magnitude at that. He killed far more people than Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, McVeigh, all the school shooters combined, and by a magnitude greater. He killed far more people than the Italian-American mafia, the Irish Mob, the Russian Mafia, the Mexican cartels combined, and by a magnitude greater then them all.



    The Capitol riots was:
    -- The first time the certification of votes was interferred.
    -- The first time the certification of votes was subject to an attempted sabotage.
    -- The first time the Capitol was attacked since the War of 1812.
    -- The first direct attempted coup d'etat of the US government.

    It's a historical event because like 9/11 nothing of its kind has happened before on US Soil. Donald Trump is the first Presidential candidate to refuse to concede an election. This is the opinion that includes Republican voices like Romney, Murkowski and others. It was the opinion that Liz Cheney took a stand on at the expense of her political career. For someone who keeps prattling on about moderate conservatism it's kind of strange why your downplaying and dog whistle denialism aligns with the narrative of Trump and his Goon Squad in the congress (Cruz, Hawley) rather than the moderate conservatives you ostensibly claim to support. It's really interesting that when it actually comes to taking a stand, when you cling to some kind of centre, you don't actually stand alongside the people who are taking hits for being at the center from the extreme republican wing.

    That's why I find it hard to see any hint of reality in your discourse and views about your conservative beliefs.
    Republican candidates in Georgia got more votes in the November election than the Democratic candidates, so Democrats overperformed in January. So the events between the two elections (Trump rejecting his loss, Trump "allies" telling people to stay home) helped swing the elections to Warnock and Ossoff. It seems almost certain that contributes to a two point swing.

    The look at old bellwethers is less relevant as election patterns and populations change. Florida is relatively close, and Trump was potentially helped by his association with the state. Ohio is going to lose a congressional district. Trump has really performed well with working class white women, his numbers are completely underwater with suburban white women, while voters of color are an increasingly large share of the electorate, so that can result in changes in statewide election results.

    The presidential election is determined by the electoral college and not the popular vote, so it doesn't matter whether Biden won a sizable majority. It matters that he narrowly won a handful of swing states: Georgia by 0.23%, Arizona by 0.31%, Wisconsin by 0.63%, and Pennsylvania by 1.16%. A small flip and Trump would have won Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

    I can appreciate the arguments about the wrongness of the electoral college, but it is the system we have. One of the reason Hillary Clinton may have lost in 2016 is that she spent time and energy trying to get higher popular vote results by spending money in states that weren't in play (also including efforts to increase turnout in blue cities within red states like New Orleans.)

    https://www.thewrap.com/hillary-clin...-popular-vote/

    Any discussion about popular vote totals encourages Democrats to waste resources in 2024.

    There may be little vote-splitting, but it matters when it happens. Susan Collins comfortably won Maine, while Trump lost the state. Vote-splitting is also distinct from voters who backed a party in previous elections switching to another party this time around. We may also be arguing past one another as two things are simultaneously true and it may depend on what you want to emphasize at a given moment. The overwhelming majority of voters are straight-ticket partisans. However, the small number of voters who don't know for sure what party they'll vote for in 2024 are going to make a big difference in determining who wins.

    The Cuban Missile crisis were a big deal because the world came close to nuclear strikes. The cold war almost went hot.

    On the question of how many people Trump killed, that really hasn't been settled. It's a different question about what another President would likely have done, and what the effects of that would have been in a large diverse country with states having a lot of autonomy, a lack of border control from one state to another, relatively careful records (which makes it easier to identify people who die of Covid) and a large percentage of people vulnerable to Covid (the old and the overweight.)

    There's a relatively small size of presidential elections, which makes some of the first seem more impressive.

    There had been other attacks on the capitol. In 1954, five members of Congress were shot by Puerto Rican nationalists. The Weather Underground bombed it in 1971.

    It is bad what happened. The people who stormed the capitol, or aided in the effort, should be prosecuted, which does seem to be the case right now. But it's not September 11.

    On the question of my comments about politicians, it does depend on the argument.

    There is a destructive idea in political discussions, and often on this thread, that it matters what side you're on, rather than whether you're correct on the specifics. With Hawley and Cruz, I was responding to the specific argument that they should be kicked out and tried for sedition. That is the goalpost. Any comments have to be understood in that context.

    This does incentivize a shady technique. One partisan says outrageous things about an unpopular figure on the other side ("Justin Fairfax murdered a woman!") Someone else points out the facts ("Justin Fairfax has not been accused of murder.") The first guy gets to refer to the second as defending Fairfax.

    Liz Cheney is 54. I have no idea what is going to be said of her political career twenty years from now. For the record, I hope she continues to have success and be a major voice in American politics. Politicians sometimes lose and bounce back (Obama went from losing a US House primary to becoming Senator within five years; John Boehner lost his position in House Leadership in 1998 after backing Gingrich's removal in 1997 but would eventually become speaker of the House) or take stands that pay off later.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  7. #29557
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,411

    Default

    Senate members have done things that would get you fired at a normal job.

  8. #29558
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Republican candidates in Georgia got more votes in the November election than the Democratic candidates, so Democrats overperformed in January.
    In other words, it means that voters were motivated by the high stakes (i.e. Sen. Majority) on the ballot.

    The look at old bellwethers is less relevant as election patterns and populations change.
    Translation: "It's inconvenient to my narrative that the main indicator of the strength of centrist voters on the national level didn't direct the national tendency in 2020, so I will fudge the issue".

    I can appreciate the arguments about the wrongness of the electoral college, but it is the system we have.
    "I can appreciate the arguments about the wrongness of slavery, but it is the system we have."
    "I can appreciate the arguments about the wrongness of Jim Crow, but it is the system we have."
    "I can appreciate the arguments about the wrongness of female disenfranchisement, but it is the system we have."

    Obvious trap, my dude.

    The Cuban Missile crisis were a big deal because the world came close to nuclear strikes.
    The Capitol riots were a big deal because America came close to a fascist coup. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Why is reality so difficult for you to incorporate in your empty pontifications?

    There is a destructive idea in political discussions, and often on this thread, that it matters what side you're on, rather than whether you're correct on the specifics.
    If you are a moderate republican and against Trump, I have to question why you are so insistent on downplaying the gravity of January 06?

    Liz Cheney is 54. I have no idea what is going to be said of her political career twenty years from now. For the record, I hope she continues to have success and be a major voice in American politics.
    In other words you hope that your decision to fudge, hem, haw and participate in obfuscation doesn't reflect poorly on you in the historical balance books. It's a secular version of Pascal's wager (let's call it "rascal's wager") where you hope that somehow the stuff you don't take stands on, your decision to not act or actually voice the principles you claim to espouse, wouldn't extract any consequences for you.

    That does seem to explain why you are so insistent on downplaying the January 06 coup, why you are aligning yourself intellectually with the aims of Trump and his evil goon squad, why you respond to direct questions with obfuscations, fudges, dodges. You think or hope that this discussion or issue about January 06 might not have long-term consequences for you. For everyone's sakes, I actually hope that happens but the point is in the here and now, on the time-stamps of these posts and this debate, that wouldn't change the nature of your arguments, or line of reasoning, or your refusal to grapple with reality as it exists.

    That's it for me as far as this goes. I don't expect you to say anything different to warrant any additional response, nor do I expect to add to what I've said above.

  9. #29559
    Ultimate Member babyblob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    New Richmond Ohio
    Posts
    12,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    Senate members have done things that would get you fired at a normal job.
    Senate members have done things that would get your arrested in other jobs.
    This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.

  10. #29560
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    In other words, it means that voters were motivated by the high stakes (i.e. Sen. Majority) on the ballot.
    You don't know for sure if voters were motivated more by a desire to give Democrats a Senate majority, or by Republican officials being idiots in November and December.

    I do think the latter had more of an impact. I'm curious if you think Democrats would have won the Georgia runoffs if Trump had accepted his loss, and if people identified as Trump supporters weren't telling Republican voters to stay home.

    Translation: "It's inconvenient to my narrative that the main indicator of the strength of centrist voters on the national level didn't direct the national tendency in 2020, so I will fudge the issue".
    The tipping point states are the main indicator of the strength of centrist voters.

    I think you're associating me with arguments that I have not made.

    "I can appreciate the arguments about the wrongness of slavery, but it is the system we have."
    "I can appreciate the arguments about the wrongness of Jim Crow, but it is the system we have."
    "I can appreciate the arguments about the wrongness of female disenfranchisement, but it is the system we have."

    Obvious trap, my dude.
    In order to win elections, politicians do have to deal with the system we have.

    They had to win elections and make the argument in order to pass the 19th amendment.

    Jim Crow was reversed thanks to correct Supreme Court decisions.

    It would be difficult to rule the electoral college unconstitutional because it is prescribed in the constitution.

    The Capitol riots were a big deal because America came close to a fascist coup. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Why is reality so difficult for you to incorporate in your empty pontifications?
    Earlier in the discussion, you insulted me personally for talking about counterfactuals, so it seems hypocritical is so much about what could have happened on January 6.

    We certainly have different underlying assumptions about that. I don't think we came close to a fascist coup.

    My understanding of American politics is that if we replayed the events of January 6 a hundred times, Joe Biden would still be President right now.

    If you are a moderate republican and against Trump, I have to question why you are so insistent on downplaying the gravity of January 06?
    You seem to think it was much more serious than I do.

    In other words you hope that your decision to fudge, hem, haw and participate in obfuscation doesn't reflect poorly on you in the historical balance books. It's a secular version of Pascal's wager (let's call it "rascal's wager") where you hope that somehow the stuff you don't take stands on, your decision to not act or actually voice the principles you claim to espouse, wouldn't extract any consequences for you.

    That does seem to explain why you are so insistent on downplaying the January 06 coup, why you are aligning yourself intellectually with the aims of Trump and his evil goon squad, why you respond to direct questions with obfuscations, fudges, dodges. You think or hope that this discussion or issue about January 06 might not have long-term consequences for you. For everyone's sakes, I actually hope that happens but the point is in the here and now, on the time-stamps of these posts and this debate, that wouldn't change the nature of your arguments, or line of reasoning, or your refusal to grapple with reality as it exists.

    That's it for me as far as this goes. I don't expect you to say anything different to warrant any additional response, nor do I expect to add to what I've said above.
    If someone thinks the country didn't come close to a fascist coup, they're more likely to ignore everything else you have to say about politics. So that gets to be a problem with extreme positions.

    This is a message board of comic book hobbyists. What I say and do here is unlikely to matter all that much. I do think that I have a good record of statements that hold up, even if there are going to be some clunkers in there, which is inevitable with thousands of comments over the years.

    I disagree with the idea that I fudge, hem, haw or participate in obfuscation. Give me nonloaded questions and I will answer to the best of my ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by babyblob View Post
    Senate members have done things that would get your arrested in other jobs.
    What comes to mind?
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  11. #29561
    Ultimate Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    12,152

    Default

    In order to completely get rid of the Electoral College, we would need a Constitutional Amendment. However, just like with the Second Amendment, the Electoral College is not absolute. We can fiddle with it, as they've done in Maine and Nebraska by making each state proportional instead of winner-take-all. We could also expand it, so that states like California have a less skewed number of electoral votes. I mean, right now, California has something like 60 times the population of Wyoming, but only 15 times the number of electoral votes. That should change, and maybe even change the number of representatives in the House while we're at it.
    Watching television is not an activity.

  12. #29562
    Ultimate Member babyblob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    New Richmond Ohio
    Posts
    12,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    What comes to mind?
    Umm Hello. Election fraud, Backing Antifa as they storm the capital, Hello?
    This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.

  13. #29563
    Invincible Jersey Ninja Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    32,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyblob View Post
    Umm Hello. Election fraud, Backing Antifa as they storm the capital, Hello?
    Antifa??????
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.

  14. #29564
    Ultimate Member babyblob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    New Richmond Ohio
    Posts
    12,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Antifa??????
    Yea. remember it wasnt Trump backers. it was Antifa and BLM.
    This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.

  15. #29565
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    In order to completely get rid of the Electoral College, we would need a Constitutional Amendment. However, just like with the Second Amendment, the Electoral College is not absolute. We can fiddle with it, as they've done in Maine and Nebraska by making each state proportional instead of winner-take-all. We could also expand it, so that states like California have a less skewed number of electoral votes. I mean, right now, California has something like 60 times the population of Wyoming, but only 15 times the number of electoral votes. That should change, and maybe even change the number of representatives in the House while we're at it.
    The popular vote compact does not require a constitutional amendment.

    https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

    Swing states would lose power under this system, so they're not very eager to join. It's also more of a left-wing cause celebre, so there isn't currently red-state movement towards it.

    Implementation would also have some likely problems, as states have different policies on running elections. It's one thing when a state's policy affects its own electoral votes, but nothing outside of it. It's another thing if a state's policies affect the national vote tally.

    There is also the question of what the response would be if the political situation changes over the next few years, and Republicans benefit from the allocation of the electoral college (Obama overperformed in the tipping point states relative to the national vote in 2008 and 2012; 2004 came down to the state of Ohio even while George W Bush beat Kerry by 2.4% nationally.) Elections have gotten closer so we may very well have Electoral College/ Popular Vote splits. If Democrats get the popular vote compact, will they stick to it if Donald Trump Jr wins the popular vote but not the electoral college? What if a third party candidate splits the vote, so the winning candidate's numbers are short of a majority (Bill Clinton won with 43% in 1992.)

    There was a Republican push to have states where Republicans had control split the electoral college vote by congressional delegation. That would have probably ended up hurting Trump, because those states included Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida.

    Quote Originally Posted by babyblob View Post
    Umm Hello. Election fraud, Backing Antifa as they storm the capital, Hello?
    What Senate members have done stuff that would get them arrested if they weren't Senate members?

    It is legal to say stupid things.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •