Political Fart Noise Part II

[Geeto67]

Democrats let me down on issue 1. Treatment is better than punishment when it comes to drugs, and I thought that was something the left understood.

 

Ohio let you down on that one, not any particular party. we are in agreement on issue 1, but it had a 63% loss.

[greg1647545532]

I want all drugs legalized and I still voted no on 1, and I'll continue to vote no on any constitutional referendum that's not a constitutional issue.

[Geeto67]

I want all drugs legalized and I still voted no on 1, and I'll continue to vote no on any constitutional referendum that's not a constitutional issue.

 

state constitutions don't function entirely the same way as the federal constitution, and there are a lot more topics covered. Article XV, the section they wanted to add to with issue 1, of the ohio constitution has language on the lottery and marriage so....it is kinda hard to argue that it doesn't "totally" belong.

 

Often broad sweeping reform like this needs a state constitutional amendment because it touches so many different areas of state and local law which can't be individually amended in any practical way. Additionally if something is considered a statewide epidemic, the state constitution is the most appropriate place to address it.

[greg1647545532]

Anything broken in legislation can be fixed in legislation. Was there anything in the constitution preventing the state legislature from making these sentence adjustments? If not, then why does it require a constitutional fix?

 

Special interest groups have figured out that they can bypass the legislature in Ohio with constitutional referendums. IMHO this should only be done in extreme situations, and this wasn't one of them. It doesn't matter if I happen to agree with the special interest in question.

[Geeto67]

Anything broken in legislation can be fixed in legislation. Was there anything in the constitution preventing the state legislature from making these sentence adjustments? If not, then why does it require a constitutional fix?

 

No nothing is broken in the legislative branch that would prevent this procedurally. yes something is broken in how districts are drawn that has an impact as to whether something like this would pass based on political party and the state of ohio isn't really capable of voting those people out of office, but in theory it could at least be submitted for legislative review and voted on by the state senate.

 

Changing something like this at the legislative level, while appropriate and the preferred method, does come with it's own challenges, namely that it is changing something from the middle out and can be attacked from both sides on state constitutional grounds as well as municipal legislation, policy, and rule making. Approaching it from the top down, the state and municipal lawmakers can test the boundaries of the amendment, but they can't outright undermine it.

 

 

Special interest groups have figured out that they can bypass the legislature in Ohio with constitutional referendums. IMHO this should only be done in extreme situations, and this wasn't one of them. It doesn't matter if I happen to agree with the special interest in question.

 

What I like about the constitutional amendment approach is that it takes the fate of the issue to the people in spite of unpopularity with the ruling political party. It puts the choice directly in the hands of the people of ohio, rather than by proxy through the system of electing lawmakers that they hope will pass it as part of their agenda.

 

I think where you and I differ is as to whether it should be "extreme situations" or merely situations that have a negative collective effect on the citizens of this state. If you look at how drug reform like this is passing in other states, there is a precedent for using the constitutional amendment path where available. And, from my perspective, this opiate crisis is only getting worse under the current system, the federal government is doing naught to stem it's progress, the current administration has no incentive to make changes and profits off the current system, and it's impact affects every person living or visiting ohio - and that alone means it should at least be given the chance to be considered by the people of ohio rather than it's politicians.

 

Where I have concern is whether too many people put the "appropriateness of amending a state constitution" before the substance of the bill and the harm it seeks to reduce. And let me be clear here, I am not advocating "cheating" the system in any way - a constitutional amendment is a perfectly legitimate path to have something considered by the people when they feel like their lawmakers might not act in their best interests. Nothing about it is a short cut, or "the wrong way". Where I feel it falls down is that some people think of their state constitution like the federal constitution, where as the state constitution is meant to be more specifically tailored to the needs of the state, more detailed, and narrower in scope than the federal constitution.

[Mace1647545504]

This chick is an idiot...I hope she is in the next attack with the extremist and get her head blown off

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sinead-oconnor-terribly-sorry-never-wants-spend-time-white-people-201541272.html

[greg1647545532]

Jefferson "Davis" Sessions is out as AG. NY Mag is running a poorly sourced piece saying that Don Jr. has been telling friends he might be getting indicted soon. Any connection?

[greg1647545532]

This chick is an idiot...I hope she is in the next attack with the extremist and get her head blown off

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sinead-oconnor-terribly-sorry-never-wants-spend-time-white-people-201541272.html

 

Man, my sister loved Sinead O'Connor, I remember when she did her pope stunt on SNL my [very Catholic parents] were fuming mad. Never did see them get just as mad at the Catholic church when it came out that she was right to call out JPII for being a molester protector.

[Geeto67]

This chick is an idiot...I hope she is in the next attack with the extremist and get her head blown off

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sinead-oconnor-terribly-sorry-never-wants-spend-time-white-people-201541272.html

 

I mean, she kinda has a point, it's not exactly white people's finest hour right now in the US, what with the rise of white supremacy, antisemitism, xenophobia, and other forms of nationalistic violence.

 

It's not the most eloquent way to put it, but then again, neither is your response (which kind of also makes her point).

 

I mean, if you want to hate Sinead O'conor for something, hate her for that interview she gave a while back where she recounted in unnecessarily graphic detail her love of anal sex.

 

Man, my sister loved Sinead O'Connor, I remember when she did her pope stunt on SNL my [very Catholic parents] were fuming mad. Never did see them get just as mad at the Catholic church when it came out that she was right to call out JPII for being a molester protector.

 

yeah and that is probably why you will never see the church prosecuted as a criminal organization in this country despite the fact that in our lifetimes they have completely and intentionally acted like one. Australia is at least willing to put an Archbishop in jail for the cover up, but here in the US we wouldn't even put the bishops in jail and it was proven that they knew and made efforts to cover it up.

 

I remember the SNL stunt too, I think my reaction at the time was "cool", my grandmother, who was a devout catholic was like "who cares, we have bigger problems". How right she was.

[Geeto67]

Jefferson "Davis" Sessions is out as AG.

 

We all knew it was coming, but much like Trump's staff I didn't think it would be the day after the election.

 

Sessions was a pretty racist piece of old guard conservative trash, but at least he was reliable old guard conservative trash, with the fatal flaw of being principled enough to not end up like John Mitchell (Nixon's AG who spent 2 years in jail for obstruction in the Watergate scandal). I shudder to think whom Trump seeks to put in Sessions place that will be more pliant to trumps requests for the AG to "defend him".

 

NY Mag is running a poorly sourced piece saying that Don Jr. has been telling friends he might be getting indicted soon. Any connection?

 

Don Jr. has been moaning about the possibility of going to prison since august, so it's not that much of a coincidence. The speculation is that it will be a perjury charge, and not one of collusion, which...I'm not really sure how to feel about.

[oh8sti]

Sin O Connor is filth.

 

Whats that saying about libs/socialists? They would shit in their own mouths in hopes that their opposition would smell it.

[greg1647545532]

What do the ramblings of an Irish singer have to do with anything?

[Mace1647545504]

What do the ramblings of an Irish singer have to do with anything?

 

this is not only the ramblings of an irish singer but it seems to be the refrain from many on the left.

[greg1647545532]

I agree, it's a true statement if "many" is defined as more than 3 and less than infinity.

 

And many on the right don't want to hang out with black people. True statement using the same definition?

[Mace1647545504]

I agree, it's a true statement if "many" is defined as more than 3 and less than infinity.

 

And many on the right don't want to hang out with black people. True statement using the same definition?

 

To your last statement, I'll agree if you include on the left also. It seems that everyone forgets it was the democratic party that wanted slavery and I feel there are still on the left that don't hang out with black people.

[greg1647545532]

Great, let's make more true statements.

 

Many on the right don't want to hang out with Jews.

 

Many on the right don't want to hang out with gay people.

 

Many on the right don't want to hang out with Muslims.

 

Many on the right don't want to hang out with atheists.

 

All true?

 

What's the point you were going for with your post?

[Mace1647545504]

My point is with your definition of many fit both sides of the aisle.

You are saying only those on the right are racist, sexist, etc.

I'm saying racism lives everywhere..I didn't think my post was that hard to understand.

[greg1647545532]

My point is with your definition of many fit both sides of the aisle.

You are saying only those on the right are racist, sexist, etc.

I'm saying racism lives everywhere..I didn't think my post was that hard to understand.

 

You're saying that now, before you seemed to be implying that Sinead O'Connor's bizarre brand of anti-white racism was somehow a mainstream liberal position. Do you want to walk that back?

[CRed05]

She pissed off white people, she pissed off Muslims.

 

Looking back at her history, she went back and forth siding with Irish Nationalists, then with the loyalists and then back to wanting an independent Ireland...all while wanting a united Ireland. She's a mess.

 

"Sinead is a mad bitch" - Conor McGregor

[Mace1647545504]

I said many..it seems every time I read something you have a white person saying that whitey is a problem.

 

Yes there are bad white people, there are bad police, there are bad military, there are bad priests, hell there are bad black and brown, but that number is very small.

 

Lincoln, FDR, JFK, LBJ, all white have tried to fix some of the social problems and if I'm not mistaken all those dudes where white.

 

So when you have all these social elitist saying whitey is bad, they need to qualify that statement.

 

But as many know sinead is a fool

[zeitgeist57]

Looking back at her history, she went back and forth siding with Irish Nationalists, then with the loyalists and then back to wanting an independent Ireland...all while wanting a united Ireland. She's a mess.

 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/nicholas-cage-you-dont-say.gif

[Geeto67]

It seems that everyone forgets it was the democratic party that wanted slavery...

 

and it seems like everyone who brings up this point forgets that the democratic party in the 1800's was the party of conservatism. The party also split into war democrats (copperheads) and Dixiecrats with the northern copperheads backing Lincoln in 1864. In the 1920's a lot of the conservative democrats began to migrate to the republican party because the democrat label was unpopular and losing ground in the federal government. By running as republicans conservatives could still advance their agenda and support of segregation during the Jim crow era.

 

The democrats saw a resurgence in the 1930's following the crash of the stock market, but as many of them had crossed party lines, the democratic party was now occupied by liberals and socialists with a few dixiecrat loyalists holding out. In 1964, when Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights act into law, the remaining dixiecrats began their final migration and by the early 1970's the Republican Party was fully a conservative political party.

 

yes the democratic party did some awful things to minorities as well, Mayor Daley in chicago, a blue conservative, comes to mind, but you have to remember one thing:

 

Regardless of party, be it democrat, republican, or libertarian, conservatism in American politics has ALWAYS supported white supremacy. Sometimes it has been subtle, sometimes it has open, but it has never wavered in this pursuit.

 

This is why history is important, and when you make statements like "democrats were the party of slavery" in a modern context to try to discredit liberalism, all you do is show your ignorance of history and support the statement that social conservatism is a historically racist political ideology in America and that is unlikely to change.

 

TL; DR version: Social conservatives are racist regardless of political party and you are ignorant about history.

 

 

I said many..it seems every time I read something you have a white person saying that whitey is a problem.

 

Yes there are bad white people, there are bad police, there are bad military, there are bad priests, hell there are bad black and brown, but that number is very small.

 

Lincoln, FDR, JFK, LBJ, all white have tried to fix some of the social problems and if I'm not mistaken all those dudes where white.

 

So when you have all these social elitist saying whitey is bad, they need to qualify that statement.

 

But as many know sinead is a fool

 

riiiight....but the black community needs to "pull itself up by it's bootstraps" and take responsibility for black criminals, right?

 

Here is the problem, you feel like you are "under attack" because there are a minority group of white people that you don't agree with (mostly), and you are getting lumped in with their bad behavior based solely on race and think it's unfair. Yet you support a group that constantly advances this same type of rhetoric on black people, Hispanic people, Asians, etc.....I'm sorry I just don't feel any empathy for your rage about this and your double standard of saying racial communities need to take care of its own, except white people because they get a pass and don't have to take care of the white supremacists that plague the white community.

 

Let's not forget that this is a crazy white lady saying it in the first place, I mean how much does Sinead O'connor's opinion really matter in your life? Is it a shitty thing for her to say...eh, it's not well thought out....but I think what you should be more concerned about is that it's not entirely without precedent and may have a smidgen of merit. Or....you could realize that the shitty extremist opinions of both sides are both a minority position and not really representative of either party's mainstream and focus on the real issues at hand and what's the right thing to do regardless of party and what your personal values really stand for. the choice is yours.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Geeto67

[Mace1647545504]

I have no love for the white supremacist, nazis, etc. or any of it, just like i don't care for the muslim brotherhood , black panthers, etc.

 

As i said much earlier any extremist is bad. The left always lumps the left into the white supremacist group and that is wrong. You have some in there but not all republicans are robe wearing kkk members but the let and the media would like you to believe that.

 

And i will disagree with you on a point, the black community DOES need to take responsibility in cleaning itself up. Just as the white trash community need to clean itself up.

 

You know give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and ....

[greg1647545532]

I have no love for the white supremacist, nazis, etc. or any of it, just like i don't care for the muslim brotherhood , black panthers, etc.

 

As i said much earlier any extremist is bad. The left always lumps the left into the white supremacist group and that is wrong. You have some in there but not all republicans are robe wearing kkk members but the let and the media would like you to believe that.

 

I'm just going to quote someone who's much more eloquent than I am.

 

DeSantis may have been embroiled in an unusual number of these controversies, but it’s what every Republican candidate worries about these days. What if some supporter of mine says something shockingly racist? What if that guy who introduced me at that rally turns out to be a klansman? What if I get endorsed by some neo-Nazi group?

 

But you know who doesn’t have to worry about getting endorsed by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racists? People who don’t give neo-Nazis, white nationals and racists any reason to believe that they share their views.

 

Now, it’s true that there are Republican elected officials who don’t. But just by virtue of being Republicans in 2018, being lumped in with racists is a risk they run. Their favored news outlets are positively saturated with white nationalist rhetoric. Their party is led by a man who is not only an obvious bigot but who also turned himself into a political figure by advocating the racist lie that Barack Obama is not actually an American, who ran a presidential campaign built on xenophobia and racial resentment, and who, in office, continues to stoke fear and hatred of immigrants. President Trump doesn’t get celebrated on white nationalist websites because they’re laboring under some misimpression about who he is. So, if you’re a Republican standing enthusiastically behind Trump, racists have every reason in the world to think you’re on their side.

 

 

But the vast majority of conservatives will tell you that they strongly believe in racial equality. Even the donor who wrote “F— THE MUSLIM N—–” about Obama says he is “absolutely not” a racist. They do believe, however, that they are constantly being unfairly accused of being racists by liberals. They eat up laughable pseudo-histories such as the work of Dinesh D’Souza claiming that Democrats are the real racists. And, at the urging of media figures such as Rush Limbaugh, they have become convinced that white people are the last legitimate victims of racism in America today, regularly held back and tied down by a system that distributes spoils to minorities while leaving them to struggle on nothing but their own merit against unfair advantages given to others. In other words, they’re deeply invested in the idea that they are absolutely, positively not racist, and they abhor any effort to divide Americans by race.

 

This requires no small measure of self-persuasion, as does arguing for policies that have obvious racial motivations. Because it’s hard to look into the minds of others, I have no idea how many Republicans actually believe it when they say, for instance, that their broad range of voter suppression laws, many of which are specifically designed to fall more heavily on minority voters in general and African Americans in particular, are motivated by nothing but concern for the integrity of the ballot. I have no idea whether they believe it when they say there’s nothing racially motivated involved when they make a political issue out of the murder of a young woman when her alleged killer is an immigrant, but ignore a nearly identical case when the alleged murderer is a white man. I have no idea if they believe there is nothing wrong with responding to the shooting of a black teenager by police by saying he was probably a thug who had it coming, but responding to an allegation of attempted rape by a white teenager by saying it was just “horseplay.”

 

But you know who doesn’t have any doubt? The unapologetic racists. And so Republicans who think themselves to be people of goodwill might ask themselves: Why is it that all these racists are so supportive of my party? Why is it that a bunch of actual Nazis won Republican nominations for elected offices this year, and our nominee for the Senate in Virginia is a neo-Confederate? Why is it that every white nationalist thinks they can find a home in the GOP? And what can I do to change that?

 

Bolding mine. And I think my point is, I see shockingly racist things on the internet like every fucking day. But conservative media seems to be selectively blind to the mountain of anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim bigotry that exists all around us, while focusing on the molehill of dumbass stories like Sinead O'Connor that spread like wildfire on conservative blogs in order to trump up this notion that whites are the real victims.

 

Like, if you really care about extremist bigots, there's a lot of targets for your ire.

[CRed05]

Looks like the shooter at the California night club has been identified as a former marine.

 

"We've had several contacts with Mr. Long over the years, minor events, a traffic collision. He was a victim of a battery at a local bar in 2015. In April of this year, deputies were called to his house for a subject disturbing. They went to the house, they talked to him. He was somewhat irate. Acting a little irrationally. They called out our crisis intervention team, our mental health specialists who met with him, talked to him and cleared him. Didn't feel he was qualified to be taken under 5150. And he was left at that scene last April," the sheriff said.