- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Populism (and Dobbs) is the basis for "muh democracy" rants and ravings from the DEMs
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
You’re drifting into a libertarian vs conservative discussion on individual policies. I concede that conservatives like myself do believe there needs to be some govt and law enforcement to maintain order.
However, theres a big difference between having clear immigration policies and trade agreements that are in the nations best interests…….and sending the FBI after parents at the school board meeting or visiting everyone within 5 miles of DC on Jan 6. If you think these are equal then we’ll just have to disagree.
That said, on the voter issue, you either believe there needs to be some eligibility requirements to vote or you don’t. If you believe the former, then it’s absolutely ridiculous to oppose verification of those requirements as part of the process.
If you believe there should be no eligibility requirements at all….then opposing voter verification laws is at least a consistent position…..but incredibly naïve and ignorant.
However, theres a big difference between having clear immigration policies and trade agreements that are in the nations best interests…….and sending the FBI after parents at the school board meeting or visiting everyone within 5 miles of DC on Jan 6. If you think these are equal then we’ll just have to disagree.
That said, on the voter issue, you either believe there needs to be some eligibility requirements to vote or you don’t. If you believe the former, then it’s absolutely ridiculous to oppose verification of those requirements as part of the process.
If you believe there should be no eligibility requirements at all….then opposing voter verification laws is at least a consistent position…..but incredibly naïve and ignorant.
1
Posted on 11/5/22 at 1:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Unions and mfg have been left homeless by the democrats abandoning them, more than Republicans adopting leftist policies. Terrible take.
One of the key takeaways is that perceived culture is the predominant rise in the populist right, and they started to actually gain political power once they adopted more leftist economic policies (see: Trump and union support for an easy American example of a population cohort switching parties but not really switching policies).
Oh wait.. you’re parroting..
quote:Explains a lot.
Ezra Klein's
Didn’t bother with the rest of the wall of text. The above faux-intellectual tortured take was enough for me.
This post was edited on 11/5/22 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 11/5/22 at 1:30 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Didn’t bother with the rest of the wall of text.
No need, condensing it is quite easy.
1. The left is scared that we might elect the next Hitler.
2. Authoritarians have been elected before, so it’s possible.
Now discuss amongst yourselves with the understanding that SFP shall be the sole arbiter of the validity of any and all points made.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 1:37 pm to Flats
quote:Or maybe he is just advocating his views, just like you are advocating yours.
Now discuss amongst yourselves with the understanding that SFP shall be the sole arbiter of the validity of any and all points made.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 1:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
I mean can’t we argue that the “perceived” right to abortion that came via RvW is the reason Legal Abortion was not codified into law in the last 50 yrs? My understanding is even Liberal Icon RBG thought the decision would eventually lead to the Dobbs moment bc it prevented actually codifying abortion rights into law.
If 60% agreed abortion in some form should be a then why wasn’t it codified into law like it has essentially been everywhere else around the world many of which agreed with banning abortion after 20wks.
If 60% agreed abortion in some form should be a then why wasn’t it codified into law like it has essentially been everywhere else around the world many of which agreed with banning abortion after 20wks.
This post was edited on 11/5/22 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 11/5/22 at 1:48 pm to STEVED00
quote:
If 60% agreed
An even better question would be that if 60% favor abortion rights then wouldn’t that be the populist position?
Posted on 11/5/22 at 2:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
Holy wall of text.
You have a lot of time on your hands apparently.
You have a lot of time on your hands apparently.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 2:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Or maybe he is just advocating his views, just like you are advocating yours.
Did you think this was a rebuttal? Yes he's advocating his views by being intellectually dishonest and framing the discussion in a heads- I win tails you lose approach. No one said he's not advocating. But he damn sure isn't discussing
Posted on 11/5/22 at 2:56 pm to udtiger
quote:
he fact that Plessy was operative law for the 50+ years it was precedent does not make it constitutional.
While it was ruled that way, it does.
If you don't accept that, the word "constitutional" is subjective to every American and has no legal or precedential weight.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 2:58 pm to NM Tiger 67
quote:
Dismissing wanting secure elections as partisan because they help the GOP is pure sophistry.
You're combining two different concepts
1. A statement of the effects being partisan
2. An evaluation of the policy itslef
This is exactly why I've tried to keep the discussion on point (to your chagrin, I might add).
quote:
Again. If you take that approach, then no discussion whatsoever is possible because ANY policy will tend to help one side or the other.
This is exactly why you have to completely separate the concept for discussion. Thank you for proving my point.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 2:59 pm to Flats
quote:
What’s the point of discussing an “abstract idea” regarding the impact of nuclear power if I claim that nuclear power will kill us all and render the earth uninhabitable?
We'd have to evaluate your claims.
I can go find numerous studies to support mine.
You don't have to agree with my assertions that these restrictions disproportionately impact DEM voters, but you've cited no evidence to support your position.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 3:02 pm to OceanMan
quote:
I’m explicitly stating that eliminating a control that is used to reconcile the people eligible to vote against actual votes, without any other mitigating control would be done to gain an advantage
Sure, but it's still a restriction on voting. You're arguing it's a good restriction, ie, judging the policy.
Clearly voter registration is a good policy, but we can't even get to that discussion unless we all agree on the basic facts (that registration restricts voters).
But within this thread, the policy evaluations have not ever really had a place.
quote:
So here you are making this partisan.
It's in response to your assumption that this could only help DEMs.
quote:
I am discussing a risk, and mitigating effort to reduce the risk to achieve an accurate result.
But, again, that's a policy evaluation. It has to be weighed against the risk of denying fundamental rights to citizens.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 3:03 pm to OceanMan
quote:
You really trying to say you haven’t done any policy evaluation?
Like? Ever?
Posted on 11/5/22 at 3:05 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
theres a big difference between having clear immigration policies and trade agreements that are in the nations best interests…….and sending the FBI after parents at the school board meeting or visiting everyone within 5 miles of DC on Jan 6.
When you pull back the discussion to "limited government", those differences become a lot more minor and partisan.
I can add in an even more hot topic area: I bet you DO support expansive government when it comes to regulating trans people, gay marriage, and other cultural hot button issues (which, again, is where right-populism is focused).
quote:
That said, on the voter issue, you either believe there needs to be some eligibility requirements to vote or you don’t. If you believe the former, then it’s absolutely ridiculous to oppose verification of those requirements as part of the process.
I support voter ID laws
Posted on 11/5/22 at 3:09 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Unions and mfg have been left homeless by the democrats abandoning them, more than Republicans adopting leftist policies. Terrible take.
Um, investing government power and regulation in the market to protect unions or industry classes is literally leftist intervention.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 3:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
impact
I told you earlier that “impact” was the accurate word choice. Glad you now agree.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 3:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you don't accept that, the word "constitutional" is subjective to every American and has no legal or precedential weight
Actually, it is your acceptance that judicial error = constituonal that is the epitome of a "subjective" definition of the term.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 3:16 pm to Flats
quote:
if 60% favor abortion rights then wouldn’t that be the populist position?
Explained in OP.
The populist-right is built around culture and stopping what they see as culture that's gone too far. Abortion is (was?) a major part of that viewpoint in the US.
If a populist-left party ever takes hold, expanding abortion rights will be a big part of it.
But, it has to be stated again, the populist-right is not the majority of the GOP currently, so 60% of the country supporting abortion may not even touch the population of the populist-right.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 3:17 pm to udtiger
quote:
Actually, it is your acceptance that judicial error = constituonal that is the epitome of a "subjective" definition of the term.
We are a nation build on laws and institutions creating faith in those laws. Your argument invalidates the USSC entirely. If what they say isn't the law, then we have no law.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 3:17 pm to Flats
quote:
I told you earlier that “impact” was the accurate word choice. Glad you now agree.
Just to be clear, negatively impact.
Page 15 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News