The Wisconsin power grab is part of a bigger Republican attack on democracy

[Revoltingest]

It's not like it was a landslide victory either. In which case, it's not ethical to turn everything upside down when merely half the state is in opposition.

...I could see maybe with 3/4 of the state being for this "change". But ethically, there should be very little change when a mere fraction of swing voters swing in the other direction.

No, it's apparently the complete collapse of western democracy.
They'll be firing up the ovens & invading Poland next.

 

[Cooky]

No, it's apparently the complete collapse of western democracy.
They'll be firing up the ovens & invading Poland next.

Sadly enough, in the left's quest to turn the state upside down with radical left wing ideas, when they meet the protective precautions put into place to prevent this radical change, they immediately threaten with protests -which acts as a dog whistle for the media to continue hyping up it's rhetoric of outrage.

...So yeah, the outrage is similar to your comparison even though the two are completely incomparable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Wisconsin power grab is part of a bigger Republican attack on democracy

On Wednesday morning, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a bill that would seize key powers from incoming Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who defeated incumbent Gov. Scott Walker in November. ..

The bill blocks Evers’s ability to change state welfare policy and withdraw from a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act — two things he campaigned on. It limits the state’s early voting period, a move that would make it harder for Democrats to win future elections. And this is all happening during the lame-duck session before Evers takes power, rushed through quickly in an explicit effort to weaken Democrats and prevent the new governor from doing what he was elected to do. In essence, Wisconsin Republicans are telling the state’s voters that their preferences will be ignored.

This would be troubling enough if it were a one-off. But it’s not.

Michigan Republicans are currently weighing similar plans, and both are following in the footsteps of North Carolina Republicans, who passed a power-stripping bill after a Democratic victory in the 2016 governor’s race. State Republicans in three of the country’s most vital swing states are displaying open contempt for the most basic principle of democracy: that when you lose an election, you have to hand over power to your opponents. The national party hasn’t condemned these power grabs, giving the state legislatures tacit permission to rewrite the rules.

These power grabs highlight one of the most disturbing facts about American politics today: The Republican Party has become institutionally indifferent to the health of democracy. It prioritizes power over principle to such an extreme degree that it undermines the most basic functioning of democracy.

What is it that Jayhawker used to say??

Sumthin like...

~yawn~ Zzz...

 

[Revoltingest]

Sadly enough, in the left's quest to turn the state upside down with radical left wing ideas, when they meet the protective precautions put into place to prevent this radical change, they immediately threaten with protests -which acts as a dog whistle for the media to continue hyping up it's rhetoric of outrage.

...So yeah, the outrage is similar to your comparison even though the two are completely incomparable.

Everyone likes the system when it favors them.
But when it benefits the other side....Satan!

 

[Revoltingest]

What is it that Jayhawker used to say??

Sumthin like...

~yawn~ Zzz...

<yawn> <ignore> <yawn>

 

[Shaul]

What the Wisconsin Republicans are doing is entirely legal.

Tempest in a teapot.

 

[Cooky]

Every time the Republicans (or what party calls itself ‘Republican’) do this, there are always those who claim “well the left does the same all the time......yet......you never present examples of equivalent malefaction.

I recall a discussion of right-wing propoganda on most TV channels several years back, and the best the righties could come back with as an equivalent was “well they slammed the VP for spelling ‘potatoes’ wrong.”

I await your scorn of the call “false equivalency”! ....along with your failure to find a democratic-party-controlled legislature defanging an incoming conservative governor, or anything close to this bad by democrats within the last 50 years.


PS. —. I don’t even know. I’m really curious if the dems have honestly done anything this underhanded in the last half-century.

SCOTUS blocked Trump from banning immigrants from 6 countries.

 

[Revoltingest]

And now Michiganistan is apparently sliding into fascism.....
Michigan Republicans following Wisconsin's lead in curbing Democrats' power | Reuters

 

[youknowme]

SCOTUS blocked Trump from banning immigrants from 6 countries.

What has that got to do with the Democrats? The Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch are suppose to be checks on the Executive Branch, as well as each other. Trump is not a king and there are limits to his powers, and when the other two branches enforce those limits that is what they are suppose to do.

Maybe I am missing the connection here, but the separate branches of government doing what they are suppose to do is not undermining the system; rather it is the system working and doing what it suppose to do. The president is not a king, he/she is a public servant and as such must follow the laws.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

This is the false false equivalency fallacy.
Why?
- One person's "underhanded" is another's "righteous".
You & I won't always agree which is which.
- I could paint the Democrats as worse than (certainly not
equivalent to) Republicans, their being bad notwithstanding.
- In subjective matters (due to different perspectives & values),
your presumption that Dems are better is non-factual....just opinion.

You want an example of underhanded Democrats?
Al Gore tried in 2000 to block overseas military ballots, ostensibly
because they arrived too late, but actually because they were
likely to favor the opposition.

Sorry @Revoltingest , but you’re simply wrong. There is only one set of facts. Bias is irrelevant. The example you present was when, after the election day was over and done, and ballot counters (both Republican and Democratic) were recounting ballots, multiple hundreds more ballots arrived in the mail from overseas citizens, unmarked as to date mailed, or even marked after the legal voting day. These ballots were legally ignored by the officials doing the recounting. Then, some complained that perhaps they should count the overseas troops’ ballots (out of patriotism). Gore’s lawyer, Mr. Herron released the “Herron memo” to the counters, explaining how the ballots should legally be not counted (as most were already correctly doing).
However, Republicans got a copy of the memo and broadcast it as an unpatriotic and “unAmerican” thing to do. The emotional fervor made Florida officials yield, and these late, illegal ballots were counted. The result was moot anyway, given the limited range of recounted votes in Florida.
So, your example of equivalency is that stirred up emotions allowed for illegal votes to be counted in favor of the Republican. A recount of which was called off by the decidedly conservative SCOTUS, when it favored the conservative candidate ( and which was against the dictates of the Florida supreme court regulations that would have demanded a statewide recount (not just the ‘undervoted’ counties), which historical hindsight shows would have sent the state’s all-important electoral votes to Gore.

SCOTUS blocked Trump from banning immigrants from 6 countries.

Uhhh. No.
In this case, the conservative SCOTUS chose to uphold the constitution. Presidential Executive Orders - EOs- (which Trump was so gung-ho in stopping as a candidate) allow the president to ban single individuals or select small groups. These banned individuals are usually criminals or have acted to directly harm the US. EOs were NEVER meant to be a means to ban entire nations, particulaly when it is clear that the ban is for religious reasons and NOT for prevention of terrorism or other threat.


So. I’m still waiting for ANYTHING to even begin to approach equivalency to Wisconsin (and now Michigan). **yawn**

 

[youknowme]

What the Wisconsin Republicans are doing is entirely legal.

Tempest in a teapot.

I don't think anyone is disputing the legality. I think the concern here is the ethical integrity of our elected officials.

 

[Cooky]

What has that got to do with the Democrats? The Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch are suppose to be checks on the Executive Branch, as well as each other. Trump is not a king and there are limits to his powers, and when the other two branches enforce those limits that is what they are suppose to do.

Maybe I am missing the connection here, but the separate branches of government doing what they are suppose to do is not undermining the system; rather it is the system working and doing what it suppose to do. The president is not a king, he/she is a public servant and as such must follow the laws.

So isn't that what's also going on in Wisconsin? Branches enforcing limits?

Please explain why this is so different.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry @Revoltingest , but you’re simply wrong.

I know that history.
Note that while Gore's attempt to exclude overseas
military votes was legal, so is what's going on in WI.
My example was particularly relevant.
So we must agree to disagree.

So few on the left will ever understand how to
properly wield the "false equivalency" accusation.
It has become perfunctory....a mere shibboleth.

 

[youknowme]

So isn't that what's also going on in Wisconsin? Branches enforcing limits?

In these cases, what limits are the Democrats overstepping?

The check and balance system via the three branches of the government is at the federal level. At any rate, the Democrats related to these instances are not overstepping their powers, as they were voted in legally. The Republicans are limiting functions that they themselves enjoyed in the same offices. There is nothing here to "check and balance", it is a simple attempt to slow opposing agenda by changing the existing laws.

 

[Cooky]

In these cases, what limits are the Democrats overstepping?

The check and balance system via the three branches of the government is at the federal level. At any rate, the Democrats related to these instances are not overstepping their powers, as they were voted in legally. The Republicans are limiting functions that they themselves enjoy in the same offices. There is nothing here to "check and balance", it is a simple attempt to slow opposing agenda by changing the existing laws.

The laws should be expected to change. Just because the left rarely plans in advance doesn't mean it's wrong to do, as the right exercises that right.

 

[youknowme]

The laws should be expected to change. Just because the left rarely plans in advance doesn't mean it's wrong to do, as the right exercises that right.

I have already said that I agree that Republicans work the system better; however, the Democrats absolutely plan in advance. The Democrats have captured the youth and that is a major move. So I do agree that Republicans play the game better in the short term, but Democrats play a better long game. Just look at the way Republicans have turned nearly all the minority groups against them. Attacking these groups decade after decade was great to sure up some short term gains, but when you upset too many minority groups they are no longer a minority.

 

[youknowme]

Whether the Republicans like it or not, despite all their efforts to impede "liberal agenda" we have always been marching progressively forward, perhaps not always in the most direct path or very fast, but that is the overall direction we continue to head. The liberals of today become the conservatives of tomorrow.

 

[Cooky]

Whether the Republicans like it or not, despite all their efforts to impede "liberal agenda" we have always been marching progressively forward, perhaps not always in the most direct path or very fast, but that is the overall direction we continue to head. The liberals of today become the conservatives of tomorrow.

Just as life itself evolved (progress) there is always the genetic code that rejects progress from being too much too fast (conservativism). If it weren't for checks and balances, we would have evolved too quickly, and that would be bad for the long run.

Politics are an extension of our living human nature.

...Too much progress = death. Likewise, eternal conservativism = death.

 

[Revoltingest]

The liberals of today become the conservatives of tomorrow.

I'd say....
Conservatives of today will tomorrow become the liberals of today.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The laws should be expected to change. Just because the left rarely plans in advance doesn't mean it's wrong to do, as the right exercises that right.

Soooooo......Win! At all costs.
Got it.