Wisconsin

"And so it was that there was a special legislative session this week, and on Wednesday, the Wisconsin Senate passed the package of bills that limit the power of the incoming Democrats by one vote. The State Assembly voted that same day and passed it by a larger margin.

Among the items included in the bill:

• Incoming Democratic governor Tony Evers will not be able to ban guns in the Wisconsin Capitol without first getting the permission from legislators.
• Evers would also need legislative permission to make changes to programs run jointly by the state and federal government, such as public welfare
• Evers cannot withdraw the state from a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act, something he promised to do on the campaign trail
• There would be a new limit on early voting—something that has been shown to benefit Democratic candidates

The package of bills also limits the power of incoming attorney general Josh Kaul, another Democrat. Under the new bill he would be required to get lawmakers’ approval to settle certain suits. If the constitutionality of a law gets challenged, lawmakers would be allowed to intervene and hire their own lawyers — in addition to the attorney general. Kaul would also be unable to appoint a solicitor general to represent the state in major lawsuits, and he would be restricted in how he spent settlement money, as lawmakers would now oversee that.

Then, in their final move, the state Senate confirmed 82 last-minute appointees of outgoing Governor Scott Walker."

https://www.theroot.com/gop-lawmakers-in-wisconsin-rig-the-game-against-incomin-1830896375

(Why the thing about early voting? Because early voting favors Democrats.)

 

It's interesting how Arizona and other Red States have been doing the opposite of late. Consolidating power into the hands of the Governors etc. and limiting the power of local jurisdictions etc. Here in AZ, they added additional Supreme Court seats just so the Republican governor could assign 2 more conservative judges.

 

Actually, if you look at the type of migration between in and out of California, not only do you see that the gap is CLOSING, not increasing... but what you are actually seeing is that that California is attracting middle to upper class, educated people into the state who wants to live in urban areas and losing rural/poorer people.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...thy-people-per-report-20180221-htmlstory.html

If you think about what crazy salaries and cost of living actually means from a free market perspective... it means that lots of people actually want to be there (but many can't afford it). This isn't to say California is perfect, it struggles with many things - but you can make a list of "bad" for every state, and a state as populous as California is going to have a lot to pick from (similar to how Florida and Texas both seems to have crazies but it's also a large, populous state). We can talk about skyrocketing rising maternal mortality in Texas, for example, but that doesn't mean the state is horrible in every way.

Long story short, talking about California's migration deficit without the context of WHO is moving in and out is also similarly misleading.

One of the things you should also consider is that by and large only red states that do well tend to be the ones well supported by natural resources like North Dakota, Texas and Alaska - this enables the states to have lower taxes while still offering services - this will be fine as long as the natural resources hold up. But most other red states take are subsidized by the richer states because they can't afford to pay for what they need.

Another thing to consider is where people who go to Texas are living... there's a reason why Texas is turning purple - much of the GDP and population growth is in urban, blue areas.

Also, Stockton was mentioned in the video, and yea, it's basically the "armpit" of California and everyone knows it. The county seat that it's in is called San Jaoqiun county and is in the valley which is one of the redder parts of the state:



None of this is tended to say "blue good red bad" because the reality is that different regions have different needs but just to give some context to the narrative you are building.

~

Also, let's consider Kansas - the grand experiment of the GOP. Massive tax and regulation cuts with promises of jobs, economic growth and budget surpluses... none of which have manifested:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state...g-evidence-of-failure-of-supply-side-tax-cuts

~

Regardless though, here are my biggest issues with the political situation in the US:

• Voter suppression/voter disenfranchisement
  • especially when disguised as concern about voter fraud
• Gerrymandering
• 2 party system
• Money in politics
• Misinformation and alternative facts
  • because I believe informed voters is vital to a healthy society
  • like when we were discussing the travel ban and I wouldn't let you get away with the false claim - I admit I get really into this part and sometimes I am accused of missing the big picture because of it, but I also believe that we can't have a proper discussion until we get the basic facts straight
  • this is also why I often write very detailed responses, often with sources/charts etc. and try to avoid snarky one liners (unless I am just feeling snarky due to the responses I am getting)
• Attacks on civil liberties
  • especially when disguised as religious freedom

Almost everything I post regularly on has to do with one of these issues. For me, these aren't left or right issues. While I do have many "left" positions, I know many of them are far fetched and not really worth talking about in the current stage of human development. Instead, I mostly focus on people not being shitty, and people being fairly represented, and stopping the bullshit/nonsense.

The ideal political system, to my mind, is one that engages and encourages as many voters as possible, while giving as many people as possible the representation that most closely aligns with their views. One of the things I said about Trump was that I am glad that the part of the America that hasn't had felt like they had a voice for so long is finally getting representation they believe in. I don't agree with their goals or conclusions, but I can be glad that they are represented.

If a viable candidate actually ran on electoral reform, I'd support him/her regardless of most of his/her other policies - that's how much I believe in this cause. (And it's also one of the reasons I am negative on Trudeau in Canada - because he ran on this, and then abandoned it.)

PEOPLE DESERVE REPRESENTATION.

Oh, and one of the nice things about the US is that there are many places which you can live with varying policies, without having to jump through immigration hoops. The only other place where there is such freedom realistically is Canada.

Something I often say is that the only situation in which I get everything I want is one where I am dictator, and even then there are limits. And that's really not what I want - society is better when more people get to contribute and having their POV represented.

I have my opinions, @profhulk, especially when it comes to actions that I feel are against the liberty of the people and the sanctity of a democratic society. For example, in this thread, the topic is lawmakers trying to change the rules to limit the power of the newly elected and to ensure that the incoming lawmakers can't fulfill their campaign promises. Doesn't that strike you as problematic? Doesn't this type of behavior concern you? Is this really a "socialism" or "leftist" issue?