TheCid

2018 Elections

644 posts in this topic

Opinion
Republicans are shrinking their electoral map
Looks as though Kavanaugh wasn't such a win for the GOP.
By Jennifer Rubin  •  Read more »
  88ab30f23edd07a34c3cb7c69a7f0191-320-0-70-8-3YY6IN2UEI56VFHIDWEOKMEZL4.jpg

 

 

The Plum Line • Opinion
Lawless, raging president fears the ‘angry mob.’ Good — he should.
The "angry mob" means more political engagement, which makes a Democratic House more likely -- and with it, real oversight and accountability.
By Greg Sargent  •  Read more »
  10ba04a8cc7cdaedca3e05d8f71c81b9-320-0-70-8-ISKCX7IH3YZC7DORGXUOXMUCE4.jpg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:
Opinion
Republicans are shrinking their electoral map
Looks as though Kavanaugh wasn't such a win for the GOP.
By Jennifer Rubin  •  Read more »
  88ab30f23edd07a34c3cb7c69a7f0191-320-0-70-8-3YY6IN2UEI56VFHIDWEOKMEZL4.jpg

 

 

The Plum Line • Opinion
Lawless, raging president fears the ‘angry mob.’ Good — he should.
The "angry mob" means more political engagement, which makes a Democratic House more likely -- and with it, real oversight and accountability.
By Greg Sargent  •  Read more »
  10ba04a8cc7cdaedca3e05d8f71c81b9-320-0-70-8-ISKCX7IH3YZC7DORGXUOXMUCE4.jpg

The job of the house is to pass legislation and NOT 'oversight and accountability' of the Executive Branch,  which falls mostly to the Federal Courts.

Of course the Executive Branch appoints those on the count and while that is clearly a conflict of interest,  that is how the founding fathers set up our system of government.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The job of the house is to pass legislation and NOT 'oversight and accountability' of the Executive Branch,  which falls mostly to the Federal Courts.

Of course the Executive Branch appoints those on the count and while that is clearly a conflict of interest,  that is how the founding fathers set up our system of government.

 

Actually the House does have a responsibility of oversight and accountability of the Executive and even Judicial branches.  The founding fathers set it up that way.  While there are three branches, they are not totally independent.  If they were, they could do whatever they want.  Many would say executive and judicial already do, but that is another argument.

While you may see the president appointing judges as a conflict of interest, what is an alternative?  Also, the Senate has responsibility to vet and consent to the president's choices.  The problem we have is that the current president has no morale or another restraints and the GOPers in the Senate refuse to do their duty.

Incidentally, the House has an "oversight" committee which was chaired for a long time by a Californian (Issa).  If House had no responsibility for oversight, this committee would not exist.

The founding fathers specifically established the duties of impeachment and conviction of executive and judicial officials.  That gives the House and the Senate "oversight and accountability."

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Actually the House does have a responsibility of oversight and accountability of the Executive and even Judicial branches.  The founding fathers set it up that way.  While there are three branches, they are not totally independent.  If they were, they could do whatever they want.  Many would say executive and judicial already do, but that is another argument.

While you may see the president appointing judges as a conflict of interest, what is an alternative?  Also, the Senate has responsibility to vet and consent to the president's choices.  The problem we have is that the current president has no morale or another restraints and the GOPers in the Senate refuse to do their duty.

Incidentally, the House has an "oversight" committee which was chaired for a long time by a Californian (Issa).  If House had no responsibility for oversight, this committee would not exist.

The founding fathers specifically established the duties of impeachment and conviction of executive and judicial officials.  That gives the House and the Senate "oversight and accountability."

 

I agree that Congress has impeachment and conviction powers and that can be viewed as oversight and accountability.   I guess that is what Mr. Sargent was getting at  (but I believe we agree that would be a mistaken road for the Dems to travel down related to Trump or Judge K).   

As for the appointing judges;  yes,  the current Senate didn't do their duty and this is clear by the mostly partisan voting.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree that Congress has impeachment and conviction powers and that can be viewed as oversight and accountability.   I guess that is what Mr. Sargent was getting at  (but I believe we agree that would be a mistaken road for the Dems to travel down related to Trump or Judge K).   

As for the appointing judges;  yes,  the current Senate didn't do their duty and this is clear by the mostly partisan voting.    

 

The Constitution did not establish three unaccountable branches, but three independent branches.  There is a difference.  That is why the House and Senate have oversight committees.  Both houses have a responsibility to assure that the executive branch carries out the laws Congress passed as intended.  It is also their responsibility to insure that the executive does not initiate activities that it was not authorized to do.

It is all part of the checks and balances, a basic component of American government since the Constitution was adopted.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-oversight-function-of-congress/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders is coming to S.C. to begin campaigning for president in 2020.  S.C. has the earliest primary in the South.  He only got 26% of the Dem primary vote against Hillary last time.

Few, if any, Democratic candidates or party officials in S.C. want him here before the Nov. elections.  His presence will hurt them and that is a fact.  The Republican governor has already tried to link his Dem. opponent to Sanders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Bernie Sanders is coming to S.C. to begin campaigning for president in 2020.  S.C. has the earliest primary in the South.  He only got 26% of the Dem primary vote against Hillary last time.

Few, if any, Democratic candidates or party officials in S.C. want him here before the Nov. elections.  His presence will hurt them and that is a fact.  The Republican governor has already tried to link his Dem. opponent to Sanders. 

There's a woman running for the state House here in Florida, and her opponent has begun running ads bashing her because she was endorsed by a group that once endorsed Sanders, and they keep showing pictures of Sanders photoshopped next to her. They also list many far left agenda items (universal healthcare, free college tuition, guaranteed income, etc.) with the implication that she will push for those if elected, when she's never brought up any of them. In fact, in her own ads, she only mentioned protecting people with preexisting conditions. So yeah, Sanders is being used as a boogeyman much like Obama, Clinton and Pelosi.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

There's a woman running for the state House here in Florida, and her opponent has begun running ads bashing her because she was endorsed by a group that once endorsed Sanders, and they keep showing pictures of Sanders photoshopped next to her. They also list many far left agenda items (universal healthcare, free college tuition, guaranteed income, etc.) with the implication that she will push for those if elected, when she's never brought up any of them. In fact, in her own ads, she only mentioned protecting people with preexisting conditions. So yeah, Sanders is being used as a boogeyman much like Obama, Clinton and Pelosi.

Unfortunately, this is a pattern that will play out across the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

There's a woman running for the state House here in Florida, and her opponent has begun running ads bashing her because she was endorsed by a group that once endorsed Sanders, and they keep showing pictures of Sanders photoshopped next to her. They also list many far left agenda items (universal healthcare, free college tuition, guaranteed income, etc.) with the implication that she will push for those if elected, when she's never brought up any of them. In fact, in her own ads, she only mentioned protecting people with preexisting conditions. So yeah, Sanders is being used as a boogeyman much like Obama, Clinton and Pelosi.

Here in my So Cal district the GOP incumbent running for her House seat (Walters) focuses mostly on women issues,  avoiding all things Trump,  while the Dem (Porter) runs ads that say Walters 'voted with Trump 99% of the time'.

Now a President doesn't vote,  so I find it somewhat misleading to say any House member 'voted with the President',  but I assume the Dem means that Trump signed bills that this GOP House member voted 'yes' on.    Yea,  that is voting in sync with the GOP establishment but not really Trump (the President),  but of course linking any GOP candidate to Trump in most CA districts is a sound political strategy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Here in my So Cal district the GOP incumbent running for her House seat (Walters) focuses mostly on women issues,  avoiding all things Trump,  while the Dem (Porter) runs ads that say Walters 'voted with Trump 99% of the time'.

Now a President doesn't vote,  so I find it somewhat misleading to say any House member 'voted with the President',  but I assume the Dem means that Trump signed bills that this GOP House member voted 'yes' on.    Yea,  that is voting in sync with the GOP establishment but not really Trump (the President),  but of course linking any GOP candidate to Trump in most CA districts is a sound political strategy.

 

Most would interpret that to mean she voted for things that Trump favored in advance of House voting.  As we know, Trump is so indecisive that he cannot be pinned down from one day to the next.  He even signs bills he originally favored, but then states he is against it but will sign anyway. 

I would find it confusing to meet the 99% criteria.    Of course, to say 99% of the time, you would have to know 100 things that Trump favored in advance and that she voted for 99 of them.  Not very likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Most would interpret that to mean she voted for things that Trump favored in advance of House voting.  As we know, Trump is so indecisive that he cannot be pinned down from one day to the next.  He even signs bills he originally favored, but then states he is against it but will sign anyway. 

I would find it confusing to meet the 99% criteria.    Of course, to say 99% of the time, you would have to know 100 things that Trump favored in advance and that she voted for 99 of them.  Not very likely.

I went to a rally to ask Porter what she meant but I wasn't picked so I didn't get to ask.   But if Porter just meant that Walters "voted for things that Trump favored" I find that bogus since as you say, Trump is so indecisive etc...

So while I understand the strategy of linking the GOP candidate to Trump,   to me this 99% stat is misleading,  at best.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephan55 on another thread just inspired 2018's Running Slogan!!!!!
"Get out and vote and Take a Dump on Trump!!!"

Or just "Take A Dump on Trump!!!

You can have this gratis Democratic Party

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

Stephan55 on another thread just inspired 2018's Running Slogan!!!!!
"Get out and vote and Take a Dump on Trump!!!"

Or just "Take A Dump on Trump!!!

You can have this gratis Democratic Party

Get out and vote is the most critical part.  That is where the Dems have failed before - too many don't vote.  That's how we got Trump and GOP domination of the nation.

Good thought though.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Get out and vote is the most critical part.  That is where the Dems have failed before - too many don't vote.  That's how we got Trump and GOP domination of the nation.

Good thought though.

Anti-Trump slogan may indeed assist in getting registered Dems to get out and vote,   but it isn't likely to motivate an independent to vote a Dem ticket.   In fact it could inspire the opposite.   As you have been saying what is key to most voters is what a politician going to do for them and their family.    

This is why I didn't like that Porter ad about 'voting with Trump' since it doesn't tell me what Porter is for just that she is anti-Trump (duh).    Porter has another ad that does work for me;  it is about how Walters voted for the Tax Reform bill which hurt well off Californians like me since our mortgage deductions and state taxes (which are really high),  are capped at 10K.    But most of Porter's ads are just anti-Trump ones.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The local GOP State Senate incumbent sent out a mailer saying why he supports a

voter ID Amendment to the NC Constitution--in the 2016 election 19 illegal

immigrants voted!!!!!!! Of course what he doesn't mention is that is out of 4

million votes cast. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

The local GOP State Senate incumbent sent out a mailer saying why he supports a

voter ID Amendment to the NC Constitution--in the 2016 election 19 illegal

immigrants voted!!!!!!! Of course what he doesn't mention is that is out of 4

million votes cast. 

Question: how did the "illegal immigrants" get certified to vote?  Also, didn't NC already have a voter ID law?  SC does.  How were they discovered?  Of course, he does not know who they voted for either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Question: how did the "illegal immigrants" get certified to vote?  Also, didn't NC already have a voter ID law?  SC does.  How were they discovered?  Of course, he does not know who they voted for either.

I think most of them lied about being illegals. I suppose the feds eventually found out.

It was a rather diverse group--a few from Haiti, one from the Philippines, one each from

Germany and Poland and some from Mexico and Central America. The GOP did pass a

voter ID law but it was declared unconstitutional, so they went the constitutional amendment

method route. I don't know if a state constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional,

but we may find out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I think most of them lied about being illegals. I suppose the feds eventually found out.

It was a rather diverse group--a few from Haiti, one from the Philippines, one each from

Germany and Poland and some from Mexico and Central America. The GOP did pass a

voter ID law but it was declared unconstitutional, so they went the constitutional amendment

method route. I don't know if a state constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional,

but we may find out. 

Illegal activist here in CA are calling on illegal immigrants to try to illegally vote.   In addition illegal immigrants are assisting Dem politicians political campaigns, acting as volunteers,  etc...   I fail to see how that is different then Russians that assisted the Trump campaign (since both are foreigners).   

Also,  CA's state legislator just passed a bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to hold some public offices.   Brown vetoed the bill since he realized this was insane.    He isn't as 'moonbeam' as conservatives wish to claim.    In fact he is one of only a handful of reasonable Dems in the CA.    I'm going to miss him (since he will be out at the end of this year).

PS:  Of course voter fraud is NOT a major problem (in CA or any other state),  but it could become one in 2018 and 2020 due to the Resistance movement which implies the ends justify the means.    Also,  I understand that GOP tricks, like removing citizens from voting roles,   offsets any likely 'gains' by Dem tomfoolery.  

(note: purpose of the last sentence was just so I could use the word, tomfoolery!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Illegal activist here in CA are calling on illegal immigrants to try to illegally vote.   In addition illegal immigrants are assisting Dem politicians political campaigns, acting as volunteers,  etc...   I fail to see how that is different then Russians that assisted the Trump campaign (since both are foreigners).   

Also,  CA's state legislator just passed a bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to hold some public offices.   Brown vetoed the bill since he realized this was insane.    He isn't as 'moonbeam' as conservatives wish to claim.    In fact he is one of only a handful of reasonable Dems in the CA.    I'm going to miss him (since he will be out at the end of this year).

PS:  Of course voter fraud is NOT a major problem (in CA or any other state),  but it could become one in 2018 and 2020 due to the Resistance movement which implies the ends justify the means.    Also,  I understand that GOP tricks, like removing citizens from voting roles,   offsets any likely 'gains' by Dem tomfoolery.  

(note: purpose of the last sentence was just so I could use the word, tomfoolery!).

Of course the main concern of the NC GOP is not so much to stop illegals from voting, but to

suppress legal voters who lean Democratic. That's why the original law was struck down by

the Supreme Court in the first place.  I once had a minor problem with a credit card and

the California AG's office helped me when Jerry Brown was AG. Of course he himself didn't

have anything to do with it, but thanks anyway Jerry. Tomfoolery is a good one, not heard

very often. I also like addlepated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Vautrin said:

The local GOP State Senate incumbent sent out a mailer saying why he supports a

voter ID Amendment to the NC Constitution--in the 2016 election 19 illegal

immigrants voted!!!!!!! Of course what he doesn't mention is that is out of 4

million votes cast.  

I'm rather liberal, and I don't know what is so Jim Crow about having to show some kind of voter ID to vote. The thing is, the government MUST make it easy for citizens to obtain these IDs, and not make them take repeated trips to the DMV or some other office when the underprivileged do not have time for this sort of thing. Usually the GOP uses the inconvenience of the thing hoping to discourage minority voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, calvinnme said:

I'm rather liberal, and I don't know what is so Jim Crow about having to show some kind of voter ID to vote. The thing is, the government MUST make it easy for citizens to obtain these IDs, and not make them take repeated trips to the DMV or some other office when the underprivileged do not have time for this sort of thing. Usually the GOP uses the inconvenience of the thing hoping to discourage minority voters.

That is the crux of the problem.  First, they require voter ID, then they make it hard to get the ID. Then they make it hard to register to vote.  Then they eliminate voting precincts in areas that are non-white, non-middle to upper class, etc.  Then they restrict voting days and hours.

In 1991 I could go to my small town library and register to vote.  It is still valid as I have voted in every election. Now it requires a trip during regular office hours to the single voter registration office in the county seat.

Last year I voted and the poll worker almost refused to accept my military ID as being valid because it did not have my address on it.  State law says it is valid form of ID.  Address is needed to determine which races are applicable.  However, since I am registered, my name and address are on the sheet in front of him.  When I challenged him a more experienced worker told him to accept it and give me ballot for my area.  She probably noticed I was getting close to complaining officially.  I use my military ID rather than drivers' license because I can and it does make the poll workers think and work.  If the state insists of photo ID, they have to put up with the confusion they created.  This year I may use my VA ID (no address either) to create some more confusion.

The problem with photo ID is how hard it is for some people to get it.  The primary purpose of photo ID in red states is to prevent likely Dem voters from voting - period.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, calvinnme said:

I'm rather liberal, and I don't know what is so Jim Crow about having to show some kind of voter ID to vote. The thing is, the government MUST make it easy for citizens to obtain these IDs, and not make them take repeated trips to the DMV or some other office when the underprivileged do not have time for this sort of thing. Usually the GOP uses the inconvenience of the thing hoping to discourage minority voters.

Don't those that receive government aid (welfare, food stamps, Section-8 housing,  etc...),  have to be legal residents and therefore show a government issued ID to collect said aid?    Yea, I'm assuming many of the  'underprivileged' are receiving some sort of government aid and therefore would have IDs. 

Of course state governments should make getting IDs as easy as possible (but also a very secure process), but sometimes even what I would view as an 'easy' process may not be for the elderly.   E.g. my 85 year old mom has to file a form with the Social Security office every 6 months to receive supplement Medicare benefits.    She can't do that for various health reasons,  so my sister or I do it for her.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TheCid said:

That is the crux of the problem.  First, they require voter ID, then they make it hard to get the ID. Then they make it hard to register to vote.  Then they eliminate voting precincts in areas that are non-white, non-middle to upper class, etc.  Then they restrict voting days and hours.

In 1991 I could go to my small town library and register to vote.  It is still valid as I have voted in every election. Now it requires a trip during regular office hours to the single voter registration office in the county seat. 

Last year I voted and the poll worker almost refused to accept my military ID as being valid because it did not have my address on it.  State law says it is valid form of ID.  Address is needed to determine which races are applicable.  However, since I am registered, my name and address are on the sheet in front of him.  When I challenged him a more experienced worker told him to accept it and give me ballot for my area.  She probably noticed I was getting close to complaining officially.  I use my military ID rather than drivers' license because I can and it does make the poll workers think and work.  If the state insists of photo ID, they have to put up with the confusion they created.  This year I may use my VA ID (no address either) to create some more confusion. 

The problem with photo ID is how hard it is for some people to get it.  The primary purpose of photo ID in red states is to prevent likely Dem voters from voting - period.

Point taken and agreed with. I realize that the GOP takes what sounds like a common sense measure and then requires layers of bureaucracy to obtain the photo ID. Some make it sound like the idea itself is unjust, though, and I just think it is the implementation that is unjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us