|
Gabriel S. posted:How is this bill not designed to pass specifically?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Nobody expects McConnell to bring it to the floor. It is however a great thing to point at and say "hmmm wish we had the senate right about now..." Right and that's makes sense. But are we saying this bill is solely being brought up to pressure Republicans then Democrats go back to their waffling on the issue and punt it back to the States?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Not necessarily. It's easy good will for the democrats and will piss off fewer donors than almost any other popular initiative, and it solves the really stupid and pointless legal issue between federal prohibition and state legalization. This particular bill is going nowhere, but it would be dumb to go "Actually our fingers were crossed behind our back" should they gain control of the senate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
That's relieving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Because if Trump actually tells his cultists not to vote for the GA candidates they're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 07:42
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:How is this bill not designed to pass specifically? Gabriel S. posted:But are we saying this bill is solely being brought up to pressure Republicans then Democrats go back to their waffling on the issue and punt it back to the States? A common (but not exclusive) purpose of messaging bills (especially the small ones, which this one isn't) is really in the lobbying entities that get the bills on the floor. The lobbying groups then point to the bill when meeting their clientbase and say "look at how hard we're fighting, keep paying us". Politicians signing off on them also get to convey that to donors. Donors and the industry that fund lobbyists and trade groups are, in many circumstances, and especially with VC-funded insurgent industries, genuinely ignorant enough of the political process to think the bill matters. (this is also one of the issues with industry and pressure groups writing bills and the ongoing brain drain in government- laws are increasingly badly drafted as both bureaucratic and congressional resources and institutional knowledge are lost.) One way to quickly identify a messaging bill is if there's any regulatory remit to the appropriate executive agencies, nuance and specific numbers, or if it reads like the bare minimum- an elevator pitch set of bullet points that would sound good to clients. I've not spent too much time on this one, but the fact that there's zero language on how the USDA or FDA would regulate marijuana is huge- there are a hundred incredibly important regulatory issue discussions happening at both agencies and DEA because of hemp's inclusion in the farm bill, and those issues would basically go from "blast furnace" to "nuclear inferno" if a bill was passed and didn't spend a gallon of ink at least slowing those fires. Generally if a bill is covered in DC press as "unlikely to pass" it means it's really a messaging bill (though it can be a different kind of messaging than the lobbyist paycheck earning scenario above). Note, though, that "unlikely", because congress is a mess, whips misfire, communications misalign, sudden shifts in political stakes and incentives occur, and extremely rarely (especially since house and senate rule changes in...I think the early 90s), a bill expected not to pass...passes. This can cause massive harm, but I am not keyed in to be able to think of an example since Reagan. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 11:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1335234470018998274?s=20 Im finally getting around to reading "The Big Sort" and this is a timely tweet .
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
clean ayers act posted:https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1335234470018998274?s=20 Good thing land isn't people
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Good thing land isn't people While our Constitution does give land some voting rights, thankfully it at least doesn't do it based on counties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:It's the same reason Georgetown doesn't have Metro access, except that DC's city government is far more beholden to people in Georgetown than MD's state government is to Bethesda. Old post, but this jumped me out of my usual lurking - this is actually urban legend. No Georgetown station was ever proposed for engineering reasons. First, the system had made the decision only to have straight stations after seeing the issues with curved platforms (ie: Battery Park), and there was no way the track geometry could get from Foggy Bottom to Rosslyn with a straight Georgetown station in the middle. Second, it would have required very deep boring and with technology at the time (late 1960s-early 1970s) there were considerable concerns digging would cause structures in Georgetown to be damaged or even collapse. Also Georgetown was not the nightlife destination in became in the 80's and 90's, so it wasn't as compelling a location. The only station in the final system plan that *did* get removed was Oklahoma Avenue in Northeast, because of community opposition over gentrification concerns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:The only station in the final system plan that *did* get removed was Oklahoma Avenue in Northeast, because of community opposition over gentrification concerns. Wasn't there also originally a planned stop at Kenilworth Avenue that didn't get built?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Good thing land isn't people Yeah that's not really why its interesting though, just the idea that people are clustering more and more around similar types of people ideologically. It in theory helps explain increasing polarization
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Wasn't there also originally a planned stop at Kenilworth Avenue that didn't get built? If I recall correctly that was proposed but ultimately not included in the final approved system. Kenilworth and other stations were proposed and didn't make it to inclusion, but only Oklahoma Ave was proposed, included and then cut. The cuts did leave some useful elements, like knock outs for later station inclusion. That's how New York Avenue Station was built. To bring this back to politics, it does speak to a wildly different political attitude at the time. Can you imagine people not losing their poo poo at spending a few extra million now to future proof a project? Hell no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
clean ayers act posted:Yeah that's not really why its interesting though, just the idea that people are clustering more and more around similar types of people ideologically. It in theory helps explain increasing polarization Nah, its not really that people are segregating much based on political affiliation driving the polarization. Its a media issue. CNN and MSNBC are poo poo but come off looking as sensible vs the bullshit that is Fox and OANN which gradually morphed into straight up alt-reality pro R fiction these days. Fixing it is technically simple: just clamp down on all the bullshit in the media and strip the Murdochs of any ownership of US media. The problem there is that requires getting laws through Congress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A common (but not exclusive) purpose of messaging bills (especially the small ones, which this one isn't) is really in the lobbying entities that get the bills on the floor. The lobbying groups then point to the bill when meeting their clientbase and say "look at how hard we're fighting, keep paying us". Politicians signing off on them also get to convey that to donors. Donors and the industry that fund lobbyists and trade groups are, in many circumstances, and especially with VC-funded insurgent industries, genuinely ignorant enough of the political process to think the bill matters. (this is also one of the issues with industry and pressure groups writing bills and the ongoing brain drain in government- laws are increasingly badly drafted as both bureaucratic and congressional resources and institutional knowledge are lost.) This is super interesting and thank for the reply. This is kind of mini-rant but I strongly dislike like how the primary avenue of legalization revolves around tax income. Yes, it's true that governments are broke but the primary reason for legalization should be that using marijuana is... enjoyable? There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong this and humanity has been purposely manipulating it's own consciousness for hundreds of years. Are we going to just have this endless deadly violent cat and mouse game forever? If Hannah Montana is singing about using drugs... then you lost the drug war. When prohibition ended, FDR said "What America Needs Now is a Drink.". If only there someone who'd double down and say "What American needs now is a joint.".
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Good thing land isn't people Exactly. We might as well talk about the collective body mass of the differing voters, or totaling up how many stoplights are in each district. Republicans just want to change the conversation because they recognize that they lost any claim to legitimate governance decades ago. If Republicans could actually mount a credible popular mandate they'd be back to talking about the moral majority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:This is super interesting and thank for the reply. I mean, things just being enjoyable isn't a prima facie reason for them to be legal (or illegal). This is partially because lots of very actually harmful things can be enjoyable to someone, but mostly because enjoyability is a fundamentally subjective quality, which is usually one helluva bad basis for drawing up a law. Marijuana should be decriminalized or legalized or whatever because it's not only enjoyable to a significant number of people but is also essentially not terribly dangerous in and of itself (because you can absolutely be a danger to others while high if you're, say, a commercial pilot flying a passenger plane or a surgeon performing major surgery, or just driving a car). Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Exactly. We might as well talk about the collective body mass of the differing voters, or totaling up how many stoplights are in each district. Republicans just want to change the conversation because they recognize that they lost any claim to legitimate governance decades ago. If Republicans could actually mount a credible popular mandate they'd be back to talking about the moral majority. To be clear i wasn't posting this as a sort of "look how few counties dems won!". It was more just because i think its an interesting trend, especially given the structural disadvantage Dems have in the electoral college.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I mean, things just being enjoyable isn't a prima facie reason for them to be legal (or illegal). This is partially because lots of very actually harmful things can be enjoyable to someone, but mostly because enjoyability is a fundamentally subjective quality, which is usually one helluva bad basis for drawing up a law. Good points. I just can't stand how we're saying that we should legalize weed because our governments are broke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:
Clamp down how exactly and through what mechanism? You're looking at serious first amendment issues here if the government starts "clamping down" on news outlets. The biggest problem as I see it is that the news, like most everything else, is funded by advertising. There are several websites I can't even read unless I disable my ad blocker. Newspapers are probably 50% nothing but ads. What percentage of your mail is some form of solicitation? I think that advertising's pervasive influence is really responsible for a lot of our social problems, compounded over generations and put into hyper dive by cable TV and the internet, and have actually considered making a dedicated thread about it because I think it's that important. A coworker of mine once said about advertising "that's what makes the world go round". He was right but didn't seem as deeply troubled by that truth as I am. You can't even put gas in your car without the loving pump trying to tell you fountain drinks and poo poo. Most people hate commercials but there's a large segment of the population that only watches the Super Bowl every year to see what clever and funny garbage Madison Avenue has cooked up to get us to buy beer. Look at how many people it convinced to smoke for so may decades even though no one ever tried a cigarette for the first time and actually liked it. Realize how many drug commercials there are saying "ask your doctor". Shouldn't my doctor be telling me? Think about how many catchy jungles we remember but can't recall the names of SCOTUS. Commercials effect us way more than I think most people realize, and it a BAD way. Even people who think they're impervious to that poo poo like myself. It's probably the single most ubiquitous cultural element of American society and it effects literally everything we do. Sorry. I didn't mean for that be that long of a post. TL/DR: Advertising is destroying honest news and, by extension, our culture and the information we absorb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Good points. I just can't stand how we're saying that we should legalize weed because our governments are broke. Tangentially related, but politico has a fascinating deep dive into medical weed in Oklahoma. So far, the government has been incredibly hands off as far as regulating either getting a license to sell or medical card to buy, which has led to a massive boom industry and growth to out pace major weed markets like Colorado. In the article, one grower says it's akin to Humboldt County in the 90s. What's ironic is that the State was completely opposed to legalization, with everyone from the governor to state legislators to religious organizations speaking out against the bill to legalize, but it passed by popular vote. This has put some legislators in the interesting position of having to figure out how to make safe an industry that had previously been opposed to. The whole article is an eye opener, and was brought to my attention when the Lt. Gov of Pennsylvania tweeted it out along with some poking of the bear that PA is now lagging behind SD and OK and how embarrassing it is. I'm in NY and feel like we'll see legislation passed this year, after NJ just moved to legalize and is moving quickly as they are adding revenue into the 2021 state budget. Unfortunate it is framed as a budgetary issue, rather than a criminal justice issue, but it's the opening in the door that we have, so we're going to take it. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/27/toke-lahoma-cannabis-market-oklahoma-red-state-weed-legalization-437782
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Clamp down how exactly and through what mechanism? You're looking at serious first amendment issues here if the government starts "clamping down" on news outlets. i wonder how much late stage capitalism's drive for ever increasing market segmentation has driven the increase in political partisanship maybe mypillow and gold scammers are more responsible for our current political environment than any single politician
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1335389678996959234?s=20 Pretty clear that whatever effect Trump has in GA, it won't be targeted due to focusing on those actual candidates. I think some Trump Effect people will still turn out because of this, but it might also motivate the other side also. Hard to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1335252598140534785?s=20 More focus groups is definitely different than polling but I can't really see how it's any better. Also the ideologification of campaign advertising method is very stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
I think digital is a good way to go to do outreach to younger voters (which at this point increasingly means anyone who's not in their 40s or older), and in the present moment is absolutely a good idea given how social media as supplanted actual in-person contact for so many. Does it just so happen that the left wing of the party adopted it first and have more experience with it? I don't know, but that seems to be an implicit opinion on these forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 04:14
|
|
|
So how did the Trump GA rally go? Did he stop short of supporting the runoff elections like we hoped?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So how did the Trump GA rally go? Did he stop short of supporting the runoff elections like we hoped? All he did was talk about himself and Hunter Biden
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:All he did was talk about himself and Hunter Biden And cucumbers https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1335403935797043201?s=20 In thread related news, he barely spoke about the two senators during his hour long rally and when they did take the stage the audience chanted over them, you could barely hear them speak. I don't think it will have the intended results the GOP is hoping for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So how did the Trump GA rally go? Did he stop short of supporting the runoff elections like we hoped? Pretty much as expected, he said to vote for Republicans but the rally was all Trump. And this https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1335401538244595712 On another topic here's the first Republican candidate trying to suicide bomb the party for being insufficiently pro Trump (but it's the Virginia GOP so who knows if it carries over to anywhere else) https://twitter.com/AJFriedenberger/status/1335323546122407939
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 05:58
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Nah, its not really that people are segregating much based on political affiliation driving the polarization. Murdoch (and family) is just the canary in the coal mine at this point. The enormous market for conservative media is now on Capital's radar. Private Equity will swoop in to fill any gaps left by Murdoch or anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So how did the Trump GA rally go? Did he stop short of supporting the runoff elections like we hoped? He came out pretty strongly at the start praising Perdue and Loeffler and telling everyone to go vote for them as the last line of defense against Joe and Kamala taking away everything you love, but sort of weirdly juxtaposed with bragging that he won anyway. So our hopes aren't panning out so far. I didn't have the stomach to watch any further but judging by the above replies it sounds like he didn't stay on topic for long at least. Belteshazzar fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Dec 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 11:23
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1335252598140534785?s=20 Local focus groups could draw out similar local issues to run on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 11:28
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So how did the Trump GA rally go? Did he stop short of supporting the runoff elections like we hoped? Victory officially declared in the War on Christmas. I'm glad it's over. I have PSTD from being on the front lines at Macy's. I've seen some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 14:00
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Victory officially declared in the War on Christmas. I'm glad it's over. I have PSTD from being on the front lines at Macy's. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 14:08
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Murdoch (and family) is just the canary in the coal mine at this point. The enormous market for conservative media is now on Capital's radar. Private Equity will swoop in to fill any gaps left by Murdoch or anyone else. Yeah the issue is a hell of a lot of people like being chuds... it’s an identity more than a set of policy positions. So the market is there. And Republicans can’t win without that market now so it will always have institutional support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Murdoch (and family) is just the canary in the coal mine at this point. The enormous market for conservative media is now on Capital's radar. Private Equity will swoop in to fill any gaps left by Murdoch or anyone else. What kind of advertisers are OAN and Newsmax pulling anyways? I can't imagine there are any large companies willing to advertise there and their only hope for long-term survival is a rich benefactor bankrolling the whole thing which works for a while but as you grow your ROI shrinks and you need more traditional advertisers to pay the bills.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:There was that representative in Virginia that got into office using a single-issue campaign to fix some stretch of highway in the district that everyone who lived there hated but nobody else in the country had ever heard of. I think that's usually attributed to Virginia state representative Danica Roem, who campaigned on alleviating gridlock on a particular road in the Virginia suburbs. I'm curious if it works as well on the federal level, like would that tactic have worked as well if it was a house representative? Or would people just dismiss it since a house representative has probably no ability to actually get something local like that fixed. That particular example is interesting, since in my mind it's kind of a Sisyphean task. The proposals all boil down to "make the road bigger/faster for through traffic". That kind of solution has almost never worked for car-centric problems; if you increase the capacity you just end up with the same congestion but more people. And the real solutions would almost certainly have been rejected by suburban Virginians. Like if she had come out and said "The answer needs to be fewer cars on the road" would she have won, even if that answer is the right answer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:There was that representative in Virginia that got into office using a single-issue campaign to fix some stretch of highway in the district that everyone who lived there hated but nobody else in the country had ever heard of. Honestly, I think he's right. One of the only times I've seen a candidate get just loud cheers was when Wyden answered a question about the Bonneville Power Administration. People feel really strongly about local issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Eeyo posted:I think that's usually attributed to Virginia state representative Danica Roem, who campaigned on alleviating gridlock on a particular road in the Virginia suburbs. I'm curious if it works as well on the federal level, like would that tactic have worked as well if it was a house representative? Or would people just dismiss it since a house representative has probably no ability to actually get something local like that fixed. You're not really thinking like a salesman (which is what politicians are). The vast majority of people don't blame you for selling them what they said they wanted, even if there's a better option out there. In fact, you usually will have better luck selling someone what they want than what they need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 18:14
|
|