Recent Posts

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 03, 2022, 04:49:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

Filter Options Collapse

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

 on: Today at 04:47:53 PM 
Started by SnowLabrador - Last post by LostInOhio
States cannot just throw electors out and nominate their own slate of them. Even if the court were to rule in favor of ISTL, that ruling would revolve around gerrymandering and not a state just throwing out electors.

Trump tried this in 2020 and got slapped down multiple times by every court, including SCOTUS. Did people just forget about that?

 on: Today at 04:47:46 PM 
Started by lfromnj - Last post by Ferguson97
A lot of people on Twitter are saying [...] Are they right?

The answer is always no.

 on: Today at 04:46:14 PM 
Started by jojoju1998 - Last post by Ferguson97
The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

So you're saying that public policy that stems from the religious motivations of individual legislators can never be, but if it's from the religious motivations of athiests, it's OK?

No. That's not what I said, and this doesn't even make any sense. Atheists have no religious motivations because they do not believe in a higher power.

Religious beliefs motivate all sort of legislation and public policy.  There is a difference between codifying Religious Doctrine into law and crafting secular public policy based on the motives of the religiously minded.

Explain to me the difference between, for example, explicitly banning gay marriage because of the Bible's stance on homosexuality, and banning gay marriage because the personal moral convictions of the legislators are rooted in those biblical teachings.

If the end result is the same (a ban on gay marriage due to the teachings of one religion), then there is no real difference.

 on: Today at 04:46:05 PM 
Started by MargieCat - Last post by Buffalo Mayor Young Kim
Yeah we really need a few extra Manchinís running around.

Those guys are really working out great

 on: Today at 04:44:19 PM 
Started by patzer - Last post by Goldwater
It's probably Bush-Kerry-McCain-Obama-Clinton-Trump. Basically a voter that swings against the national trend every time. It's also a fairly incoherent voting pattern in its own right.

This is the really hard part to explain.  Are they pro- or anti-war LOL?  And the 2012 vote rules out personal animosity against Obama.

They're a liberal Arizonan who McCain won the vote of because of favourite son effect.
Or they don't even need to be Arizonan; they could just be a moderate centre-left Democrat who likes how McCain is a 'maverick.'

But why would someone like that vote Trump in 2020?

 on: Today at 04:43:53 PM 
Started by Super Size My Freedom Fries! - Last post by Buffalo Mayor Young Kim
The future of the party is the controlled opposition is a managed democracy.

And for some reason everyone would rather let that happen than do a damn thing about it.

 on: Today at 04:42:32 PM 
Started by Alben Barkley - Last post by The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow
Not surprised. I am a pretty big Biden defender and even I don't want him to run again.

The problem remains who the hell to run instead.

Hillary Clinton?  There's already talk of it.  Possibly a rerun of Nixon narrowly losing in 1960 and then winning (still relatively narrowly) in 1968.

Not from anyone remotely credible or serious.

 on: Today at 04:41:03 PM 
Started by Old School Republican - Last post by CumbrianLefty
More and more stuff coming out about Pincher, decent chance he will be gone as an MP within days.

 on: Today at 04:39:45 PM 
Started by Alben Barkley - Last post by PRESIDENT STANTON
Me thinks, some folks in Democraticworld are more worried about DeSantis than they want us to believe! Newsom is acting possibly like a stalking horse and is trying to cut DeSantis off at knees! Obviously the polling about DeSantis has some Democrats more than a tad worried. Hence the AntiDeSantis attack ads!

 on: Today at 04:39:30 PM 
Started by 2016 - Last post by Ferguson97
I'm not sure why the usual suspects are peeing their pants over "muh horrible messaging".

Why would this answer upset anyone who isn't a right-wing reactionary?

Because reactionary right-wingers continue to have sole domination of the narrative because Democrats are spineless cowards

Until they start fighting back, they need to be extremely careful about every word that comes out of their mouth in public

This is an example of fighting back. I'm not really sure what you want from them. You say "stop letting Republicans control the narrative", and then you complain when they push back against that narrative.

I get that you're one of the people for whom Democrats will always be making the wrong decision no matter what that decision is, but come on.

For most people in the US, "world order" is a term most often associated with neo-Nazis and their like

I do not agree with this either.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 12 queries.