|
Dead Reckoning posted:Does it matter that the opposition party are the ones bringing it up if the accused officials, y'know, actually did it? The fact that congressional Democrats are promising to look into Trump's taxes, etc. and plenty of left-leaning media outlets dig for dirt on his administration doesn't change the fact that he ought to be held to account for whatever additional wrongdoing they will almost assuredly uncover. A crime is a crime, etc. Northam, Fairfax, and everyone else absolutely should be held accountable for what they're guilty of - crime or otherwise. But if there was a deliberate attempt from the left to not only get Trump to resign but to also get Pence to resign and work their way down to Nancy Pelosi becoming President a whole lot of Republicans would understandably have concerns about what that exactly means for a representative government. And the Virginia situation is a number of layers deeper. Lines of succession weren't designed in this way. There's something uncomfortable about the idea of a political party losing an election and then enacting something of a "soft coup" to take power anyway. Like even if you support them and their agenda it sets a troubling precedent and its definitely not anything remotely resembling a representative democracy. I don't actually know what the right answer to that question is. It feels like it can be simultaneously true that the Virginia Democrats should be held accountable for their sins but also that there appears to be an agenda by the Virginia Republicans to grab the governorship through very undemocratic means. I don't know how to rectify those two things without some moral compromises one way or another.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Yeah, there's the issue of racism and blackface and Northam's unquestionably terrible handling of this and clear inability to get what's wrong. Then there's the bigger issue of why blackface was apparently so accepted so recently in Virginia and what that says about Virginia race relations today. Then there's the real world political consequences of possibly giving the Governorship over to Republicans while important issues are on the table. Its obviously a complicated matter for many. Giving the governorship to Republicans isn't an issue (or at least not a direct one). The governor can unilaterally fill elected vacancies, and appointments are good through the next general election. So long as Fairfax resigns first, Northam can appoint a new LG, who'd then become governor when Northam steps down and hold the position until the general election late this year. Since Northam won by 8 points, I'm not too worried about a new election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Yeah, it does seem unavoidable even if everyone resigns. It just struck me as a weird situation that made the bigger picture a little more complicated. I imagine Republicans would be bothered by Northam appointing his own replacement before resigning, and that would be kind of fair. But the right idea seems to be to just have a new election and it sounds like that's what would happen in that case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Does it matter that the opposition party are the ones bringing it up if the accused officials, y'know, actually did it? The fact that congressional Democrats are promising to look into Trump's taxes, etc. and plenty of left-leaning media outlets dig for dirt on his administration doesn't change the fact that he ought to be held to account for whatever additional wrongdoing they will almost assuredly uncover.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
I just wanted to highlight this little Freudian slip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Giving the governorship to Republicans isn't an issue (or at least not a direct one). The governor can unilaterally fill elected vacancies, and appointments are good through the next general election. So long as Fairfax resigns first, Northam can appoint a new LG, who'd then become governor when Northam steps down and hold the position until the general election late this year. Since Northam won by 8 points, I'm not too worried about a new election. I was just going to ask about this, couldn't they just resign in reverse order so they appoint a new AG, when the AG resigns, then Fairfax resigns and they appoint another AG and then Nirtham resigns and they appoint a third AG, assuming that AGs get promoted when a vacancy opens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I was just going to ask about this, couldn't they just resign in reverse order so they appoint a new AG, when the AG resigns, then Fairfax resigns and they appoint another AG and then Nirtham resigns and they appoint a third AG, assuming that AGs get promoted when a vacancy opens. I don't think AG gets promoted to LG, just to governor if both governor and LG are gone without a replacement LG being put in place. That said, I'm also unclear about who appoints the replacement AG if there's a vacancy. Is that position appointed by the governor or the state legislature in Virginia?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I imagine Republicans would be bothered by Northam appointing his own replacement before resigning, and that would be kind of fair. No it would not be fair. The Democrats won the election, it's a whole lot more fair for the state Democratic Party to pick a Democratic governor like the people voted for rather than for the guys that lost the election to take power
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it would not be fair. Especially when the GOP is only in a position to grab the governor's mansion due to a literal coin flip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it would not be fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
mystes posted:It wouldn't be good for a Republican to become governor this way, but having the current elected governor, lieutenant governor, etc. resign and appoint someone who was not elected by the people of the state the new governor is really not good at all either either. Okay, so is it better or worse for the GOP speaker of the house, who came into power based on literal random chance as the deciding house election was a literal tie, to take power? Sure, it's a lovely situation regardless, but which scenario do you see as being the least worst?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Lager posted:Okay, so is it better or worse for the GOP speaker of the house, who came into power based on literal random chance as the deciding house election was a literal tie, to take power? Sure, it's a lovely situation regardless, but which scenario do you see as being the least worst? They both suck which is why everyone is frozen. One time bill for a special election for all 3 of them is probably the sane choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
mystes posted:It wouldn't be good for a Republican to become governor this way, but having the current elected governor, lieutenant governor, etc. resign and appoint someone who was not elected by the people of the state the new governor is really not good at all either either. Well you might want to tell it to Congress because unelected appointed officials are in the line of succession for Presidency as well. And the Speaker of the Assembly was not elected by the people of the state either, he's the rep for a single district. That's not to say a Special Election wouldn't be better, of course it would, but appointment by the winner of the 2017 election is better than the losers of the 2017 getting in by default
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
mystes posted:It wouldn't be good for a Republican to become governor this way, but having the current elected governor, lieutenant governor, etc. resign and appoint someone who was not elected by the people of the state the new governor is really not good at all either either. Why not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
Democratic leadership sucks and they all need to be fired into the sun. https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1095025211831971841
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:to pick a Democratic governor like the people voted for This statement makes me mad, but enough people vote entirely based on party that I'm having trouble refuting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Democratic leadership sucks and they all need to be fired into the sun. And of course, at no loving point in time, did they consider to ask why a Somali Muslim woman may have the perspective she has. Also, they can gently caress right off by saving they will always be strong supporters of Israel since we have shared interests. I don't want to hear a word about speaking out against genocide when this one seems totally fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Support for zionism is falling pretty quickly among democrats, but its still about 50/50, and politicians are still pretty terrified that AIPAC will run giant attack ads against them. It's loving awful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1095046561254567937 And somehow, for some reason, even this is getting dragged as "anti-Semitic." You can't even call AIPAC a lobbyist group, now. It's almost like the people attacking her aren't doing it in good faith. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:This statement makes me mad, but enough people vote entirely based on party that I'm having trouble refuting it. What makes you mad about it. The reason people supported Northam is, presumably, because they prefer the values and the policies of the Democratic Party to those of the Republican Party. Not because they went to his christening and know his heart and love what a swell guy he is or w/e. If you can't have a special election, the most reasonable thing to do to replace a governor is to appoint someone who shares the platform and values he ran on, what's the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What makes you mad about it. Because people should be voted into office based upon their individual skills and beliefs, not whether they have a D or an R next to their name? And that credit for their victory should be assigned to those things and not what letter was next to their name? Saying that voting for someone is all about their party is how you get indicted people getting elected as attorney generals, because the alternative is supporting the other party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Because people should be voted into office based upon their individual skills and beliefs, not whether they have a D or an R next to their name? Who is more likely to share an elected Democrat's individual beliefs, another Democrat selected by that elected Democrat in question or a Republican
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Because people should be voted into office based upon their individual skills and beliefs People should call their mom more often and vote in their rational self interest, but here we are. Following the rules and disenfranchising millions of folks who voted D is a lovely solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Because people should be voted into office based upon their individual skills and beliefs, not whether they have a D or an R next to their name? And that credit for their victory should be assigned to those things and not what letter was next to their name? This delusional conviction that politics is (or at least should be) primarily a matter of choosing the best individuals to lead rather than an ugly and neverending tug of war between rival interest groups is probably one of the single most harmful and dangerous beliefs in American history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
Don't forget to point out it was/is a belief so dumb and fraught with incredibly obvious problems (which surfaced immediately), that we had to amend the constitution right away so it no longer treated the runner-up in the presidential election as the "second-most qualified individual to run the country"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it would not be fair. I think I was making it pretty clear that I have a serious problem with the idea of flipping the party in power through this means. What I was saying was that there's definitely something off about the idea that a politician is unfit for office and should resign, but that they'd personally choose their replacement right before they did. If they're unfit for office they should be unfit for such a major decision, and even if they wouldn't having deposed leaders choosing their successors is very monarchal as opposed to any kind of representative democracy. Nothing about a situation where 3 lines of succession resign in near unison is gonna feel like a normal, proper representative government, which as said by others is really why this situation feels like such a stuck trap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Just make me God emperor of Virginia and I'll fix all the problems. I'll even refuse all party labels and start by fixing your silly commonwealth issue.
Gyges fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Because people should be voted into office based upon their individual skills and beliefs, not whether they have a D or an R next to their name? Show me an ethical Republican and I'll show you Atlantis. At this point it's morally irresponsible to vote R, regardless of what they do or say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I was just going to ask about this, couldn't they just resign in reverse order so they appoint a new AG, when the AG resigns, then Fairfax resigns and they appoint another AG and then Nirtham resigns and they appoint a third AG, assuming that AGs get promoted when a vacancy opens. The governor fills vacancies for elected offices (including AG) unless the office is elected by the general assembly: Virginia Constitution, Article V Section 7 posted:The Governor shall have power to fill vacancies in all offices of the Commonwealth for the filling of which the Constitution and laws make no other provision. If such office be one filled by the election of the people, the appointee shall hold office until the next general election, and thereafter until his successor qualifies, according to law. The General Assembly shall, if it is in session, fill vacancies in all offices which are filled by election by that body. They'll only hold the seat until the next general election, so until November in this case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
I mean, 4th-in-line is a republican who edited his school's yearbooks and he filled them with racist/sexist quotes and images. So if the state NAACP is fine with the 3rd-in-line state DA then that's good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1095140316510736384 I wonder what the 'death zonifying the border' compromises are. WaPo posted:Top lawmakers say they have reached a deal to fund the government through the fall, a deal that would resolve ongoing disputes over immigration and — if signed into law by President Trump — stave off a partial government shutdown set to start Saturday. Insanite fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Feb 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
Insanite posted:https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1095140316510736384 quote:The deal calls for $1.375 billion for border barriers (55 new miles of bollard fencing, with certain restrictions on location).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
quote:Democrats have dropped their call for a new cap on interior detention beds, and the overall cap on detention beds drops from 49,057 to 40,520. So does this mean fewer people actually in detention or just as many but with fewer resources to care for them? I ask this only because of how loving evil ICE is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
I don't understand why they would now permit funding for any amount of new barriers on the border, given how it will be spun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't understand why they would now permit funding for any amount of new barriers on the border, given how it will be spun. Are you familiar with the Democrats
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Not doubting they'd ever do it, but I'm gonna wait for a Democratic rep to comment first, right now it's just "congressional negotiators" and a Republican rep from Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Not doubting they'd ever do it, but I'm gonna wait for a Democratic rep to comment first, right now it's just "congressional negotiators" and a Republican rep from Alaska. Also we have to wait for President Deals to put in his two cents and blow the whole thing up. Seems like the Democrats are getting jack poo poo in the reported info though, which is both consistent with historic Democratic dealing and questionable as to the veracity of this report.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't understand why they would now permit funding for any amount of new barriers on the border, given how it will be spun. Because when a sane president is elected, that money can be turned into actual technological improvements, consistent with what Democrats have been advocating for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
saintonan posted:Because when a sane president is elected, that money can be turned into actual technological improvements, consistent with what Democrats have been advocating for a while now. So put it in for tech improvements now and tell the orange piss goblin to gently caress himself sideways with a rusty cactus. No goddam money for the narcissist's racism monument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:So put it in for tech improvements now and tell the orange piss goblin to gently caress himself sideways with a rusty cactus. No goddam money for the narcissist's racism monument. It's 55 miles out in the middle of nowhere that will take many many years to actually build (if at all), and it keeps Orange Julius Caesar from keeping the government closed for a month again out of spite. I get the hate boner toward the toddler throwing a tantrum, but as an agreement it's reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:12
|
|