Voters re-elect President Barack Obama.
Marriage equality sweeps in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.
And we seem to have more women in the U.S. Senate than ever before. Sen. Warren. Sen. Baldwin.
(Image swiped from Advocate.com.)
Bills that are unacceptable because they deny rights should not be introduced at all
And anyone who wants one and can take care of it should have a pony, but sadly they do not.
Do the lawmakers in your country really never introduce bad bills? Or does every bad bill get voted down? Is your system of lawmaking really working that well?
Humans being what they are, I’m guessing the answer is no. Bad bills get introduced for a variety of reasons. There are a variety of means that can be used to counter them. One of the means that the US has is the filibuster and if the rules governing its use are sensible and properly enforced it can be a good one. I
Wow, that is some high grade stupid there. On more than one level.
I actually don’t think we could have done that at my high school. The students had control of the year book, but there were limits. I’m pretty sure the Confederate battle flag was on the wrong side of the line.
Also, the yearbook adviser would have had a meeting about it and explained why that just wasn’t right and didn’t we want to rethink the design? I just can’t see it going to the printer with the Stars & Bars on the cover.
The Stars and Bars flag was actually a lookalike of the US flag with just three stripes, and was the first official flag of the Confederacy. Not the same as the flag with the X. That symbol was part of the so-called nation’s later official flag,
Did you hear about the time O’Reilly shared about Al Sharpton taking him to Sylvia’s soul food restaurant in Harlem? Apparently, BillO was shocked to have had a pleasant experience. People were politely dining, a few folks recognized him and came over to greet him, and no one was shouting at the waitresses, “Hey, where the hell is my muthafuckin’ iced tea?!!!”
That story. Good lord. Didn’t he say something about being surprised that there were forks?
Bill definitely has a history of being quite racist (in that way that allows other racists to say that he’s not), but he doesn’t usually say that traditional America, which is the good America, is white men who didn’t have to put up with this shit. His election night screed just seemed really blatant to me in a way that most of his crap isn’t quite.
Tammy Baldwin, now Senator for Wisconsin.
Look at the lack of landslide, as pointed out earlier. Too many white guys whoted for rich old guys after believing Fox
I spent a lot of time yesterday thinking on this, and I came to an understanding. It’s bad. But it’s not as bad as you think it is, and here’s why:
If you’re a white guy who isn’t gay or poor, then you had a certain luxury in this election: you didn’t have to inform your vote by the fact that one side didn’t think you were fully human or that the actual candidate seemed to be a psychopath: you could just vote based on whether you think that on balance, conservative policies are better or liberal policies are better. And while I think that there actually is a concrete and demonstrable right and wrong answer there, I’ll allow the possibility that there is room for a plurality of views on the subject, and history has shown that *in isolation from everything else*, this country is indeed split roughly evenly between those who think that liberal policies work better and those who think that conservative ones do.
Now, I may think that straight, christian, middle-class white guys are suffering a lack of empathy if they choose to make their decision in that kind of isolation. But those who do make the decision on that basis would surely break left as often as right.
So what we’re really taking about when we talk about how only 39% of white males voted for Obama is this: in total isolation of the realities of how badly off the rails the GOP has come from being a legitimate and honest conservative party, we would expect 50% of white males (and 50% of any other demographic for that matter) to vote for Obama, and 50% for Romney.
So the real number is 11%. 11% of white men decided that even though in isolation they are not sympathetic of conservative politics they should throw in and do their part to defend white male privilege. (And let it not be forgotten. A very large percent of women, african-americans, QUILTBAG folks, non-christians, and latinos, even though they did not in isolation feel a kinship with liberal policies, decided to vote for the party that wasn’t actively trying to kill them.).
You’re playing with fire wishing for that. Although I sadly believe they will do that regardless, because they’ve been doubling down after lost elections for decades now.
As I said in my previous post. If this is a winning strategy for the GOP, then I would rather they do it and we all know it. I’d rather know that there’s no hope for this society so I can stop wasting my time trying to keep civilization from burning down when what the people really want is a bonfire.
Do the lawmakers in your country really never introduce bad bills? Or
does every bad bill get voted down? Is your system of lawmaking really
working that well?
No, and I didn’t claim to. However, I see quite a degree in difference between “passing a law that many consider a bad idea” and “passing a law like DoMA to activly restrict people’s rights”.
When the Red-Green coalition introduced a law for gay marriage (federal level), the consies grumbled, but it passed during majority in the first house. In the second (state) house, the black consie states changed it so to only recognize “domestic partnership” instead of full marriage, and gays have to go to a notary (and pay more) for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Germany
But when the consies got majority again, they didn’t pass a law to recall this or anything.
Furthermore, Families are protected under constitution (from the start), but are not specified as to which type (single-parent, man-woman parent, patchwork, gay parents – all are families), so the Constitutional court ruled that unequal treatment of gay partnership-families and hetero-marriage-families was unconstituntional.
The last time I remember that one party (the blacks) recalled a law prominently (instead of just tweaking it a bit) which the other side passed was the infamous “Exit from the Exit” and that bit them in the ass hard.*
One of the means that the US has is the filibuster and if the rules
governing its use are sensible and properly enforced it can be a good
Even if I were to grant that assumption, that’s not how it’s been done the last decades. The Repubs simply threaten one and the Dems fold, but if the Dems should use one, they are too wimpy to actually do. So it doesn’t even achieve it’s stated purpose.
*During Red-Green majority, one of the issues important to the minority partner Green was an “Exit” (Ausstieg) from nuclear power production. But since previous govt.s had promised the industry decades-long subsidies and other bonuses, they couldn’t simply write a new law to stop nuclear energy without running the risk of being taken to court for breach of contract. So the govt. and the industry sat down for months and haggled out a compromise. The green base was not happy for taking too long instead of right now; the industry was not happy for having to stop at all, but both sides had finally agreed, seeing which way public opinion was going. So the govt. passed the law.
Then Angie and the consies came to power and hurriedly did an “Exit from the Exit” nullifying the compromise and going back to previous status – without even putting in additional clauses, like requiring the companies to update their 40-years old reactors to current safety standards or keep the concrete from cracking, or adresseing the 100+ incidents in one reactor in one year which were not reported though being obliged by law. Most of the population went “Doh, idiots, what about safety? Don’t you see the companies making millions of money without doing anything in return?”
Then Fukushima blew up, and the majority of population walked on the streets in protest saying “if the japanese with their high-tech can’t control them, Siemens can’t either, stop now!” and Angie’s approval fell to bottom. So Angie did a 180 and made a new exit in a couple of weeks – without input from industry and breaking the old contracts (because she didn’t re-use the old compromise from before). So the industry threatened to take the govt. to court, and the population said “Thanks for finally listening to us, but Doh, idiots, if the companies sue you, we pay with our tax-money, couldn’t you have done it smarter?” (Currently the companies seem to have recognized what a PR debacle sueing would be).
If you’re a white guy who isn’t gay or poor, then you had a certain
luxury in this election: you didn’t have to inform your vote by the fact
that one side didn’t think you were fully human or that the actual
candidate seemed to be a psychopath: you could just vote based on
whether you think that on balance, conservative policies are better or
liberal policies are better.
Sorry, I don’t buy that. Unless you mean that in the sense that consies seem to define themselves these days: not interested in facts about what the problems are, only scaremongering, and not interested in which strategies work, only ideology.
Because even if you aren’t poor, the way the economy goes affects everybody. You need to be drooling stupid to not know that. And somebody who uttered complete idiocy like Romney, not only flip-flopping but having no real strategy beyond
1. lower taxes for the rich
3. Profit/ jobs
when articles everywhere pointed out that what was known of his strategy can not work in the real world with real numbers. It’s not a question of “I don’t believe in giving hand-outs and making people dependent on them, I want to get them back on their feet”, it’s believing that the figures about economy from Obama are not true, but Romney’s figures are reasonable.
I’d rather know that there’s no hope for this society so I can stop
wasting my time trying to keep civilization from burning down when what
the people really want is a bonfire.
I can understand talking like a misanthrope from frustration, but still – in an older post, Fred pointed out that poor people want to improve govt., because they can directly see the effects of bad govt. It’s the rich people who want to play anarchists and overthrow the govt. because they don’t directly see the effects or can delude themselves that they will be isolated from the crash by their money.
So please, don’t say that.
Because even if you aren’t poor, the way the economy goes affects
everybody. You need to be drooling stupid to not know that. And somebody
who uttered complete idiocy like Romney, not only flip-flopping but
having no real strategy beyond
Liberals this time around had to vote for the guy who orders drone strikes and has US citizens executed without a trial, who bailed out the banks without so much as a slap on the wrist for trashing our economy, and who only came out in support of marriage equality because his VP forced the issue.
If I can say, in good conscience, “Look, Obama might not be our ideal candidate, but Elizabeth Warren isn’t running, and if we won’t support our own side, they’re never going to have the power to move this country leftward” I can hardly be surprised if there’s some conservatives who say “Look, Romney’s not our ideal candidate, but John Huntsman isn’t running and if we won’t support our own side, they’re never going to have the power to move this country rightward.”
I can understand talking like a misanthrope from frustration, but still –
in an older post, Fred pointed out that poor people want to improve
govt., because they can directly see the effects of bad govt. It’s the
rich people who want to play anarchists and overthrow the govt. because
they don’t directly see the effects or can delude themselves that they
will be isolated from the crash by their money.
I prefer to appeal to people’s better nature. If it turns out they haven’t got one, then it’s time to pack it up and go home.