Red Mosquito

say the quiet part out loud

Both of Georgia's very red, pro-Trump senators are up for re-election.
David Perdue, who was first elected in '14, is up against John Ossoff, 33. Ossoff challenged for US Rep Karen Handel's seat in '18. He lost 51.4-48.2 but the race attracted national attention. Right now the race is neck and neck.
Meanwhile Kelly Loeffler was named to replace retiring Johnny Isaakson and is running to fill out the rest of his term. At first her most serious challenger was thought to be Doug Collins, a US Rep who's a Trump darling and gained national attention during the impeachment procedures. Both have been campaign ads playing up their support of Trump. In recent weeks though Ralph Warnock has emerged as a viable challenger for the Democrats. He's been the senior pastor of Atlanta's Ebenezzer Baptist Church for 15 years. In Georgia you have to get 50% plus one to win, not a plurality. A run off is almost a certainty. My bet is Loeffler/Collins but Warnock's gaining momentum and could knock one of them out.
Loeffler's also been running ads claiming she's "more conservative than Atilla the Hun" and they're as nonsensical as it sounds.

Anyone following CA politics? Any good polling on prop 15 and 22? Prop 22 is getting a pretty significant ad blitz from its well heeled sponsors.

Its a shame that it takes giants like Uber and Lyft to (partially) repeal garbage like AB-5.

I voted for one Republican, the NC Commissioner of Agriculture. Three days after I mailed my ballot, my wife brought me the paper with interviews from both candidates, and the Democrat wants to legalize marijuana.

Fucking Republicans!

Bammer wrote:Those of you who have met me: Honestly would you vote for me for a city council position?

It’s official. I am doing this (someday). And my campaign slogan will be “Everybody Chill the Fuck Out”

North Carolina's Supreme Court Chief Justice race has come down to 400 votes out of 5.4 million.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... acism.html

Our current city council is making me wish that there were limits to what an elected government can do that was not included in their platform. Vancouver city council has recently adopted two proposals that were not in their election platform.
1. Asking the federal government for an exemption to make all drugs legal for individuals. I can see why they didn't run on this.
2. Adding a toll tax to all vehicles entering the city. How an elected body can think they were elected to add a new tax that was not in their platform is beyond me. Again, I can see why this wasn't in their platform.
It's not like this city council has completed the platform they were elected on. This is them doing a straight up bait and switch. Shit that is illegal in advertising and retail but somehow politicians are exempt from this. Makes me want all changes to law and taxation to go to public plebiscite or referendum prior to adoption.

as far as any publicly elected official goes i think the moment yo do something that goes against your platform you should lose your position and a new election should be held that you are banned from participating in

Yes, elected officials should never be allowed to make adjustments in policy based on current circumstances.

tragabigzanda wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:Our current city council is making me wish that there were limits to what an elected government can do that was not included in their platform. Vancouver city council has recently adopted two proposals that were not in their election platform.
1. Asking the federal government for an exemption to make all drugs legal for individuals. I can see why they didn't run on this.
2. Adding a toll tax to all vehicles entering the city. How an elected body can think they were elected to add a new tax that was not in their platform is beyond me. Again, I can see why this wasn't in their platform.
It's not like this city council has completed the platform they were elected on. This is them doing a straight up bait and switch. Shit that is illegal in advertising and retail but somehow politicians are exempt from this. Makes me want all changes to law and taxation to go to public plebiscite or referendum prior to adoption.

For the second one, is there a chance that they're trying to offset a budget shortfall because of the pandemic?
Does Canada/BC have to carry a balanced budget? I have no idea.

Federal and Provincial (State) level governments can carry deficits. Municipalities must balance their budgets with some weird rules/exceptions for capital projects. Property taxes are going up 5%, double inflation rate.
Covid seems to be bringing to light many of the ways our levels of government do not work together. A rent and eviction freeze has been put in place by provincial government. Yet municipalities are raising property tax rates. There is only so much landlords can eat in expenses while the city isn't eating any. If province dictates rent freeze, it should have come with a property tax rate freeze at municipal level.

Norris wrote:Yes, elected officials should never be allowed to make adjustments in policy based on current circumstances.

Introduction of a new tax or reversal of platform policy should require either referendum or new election. It is illegal in for private sector to bait and switch, it should be for governments as well.

surfndestroy wrote:

Norris wrote:Yes, elected officials should never be allowed to make adjustments in policy based on current circumstances.

Introduction of a new tax or reversal of platform policy should require either referendum or new election. It is illegal in for private sector to bait and switch, it should be for governments as well.

change yes, but to blatantly lie is another. if you run on a platform of we wont raise school taxes and within 2 months you vote to raise taxes or you run on no political pay raise while im in office and you vote for the pay raise you should be fired

Peeps wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Norris wrote:Yes, elected officials should never be allowed to make adjustments in policy based on current circumstances.

Introduction of a new tax or reversal of platform policy should require either referendum or new election. It is illegal in for private sector to bait and switch, it should be for governments as well.

change yes, but to blatantly lie is another. if you run on a platform of we wont raise school taxes and within 2 months you vote to raise taxes or you run on no political pay raise while im in office and you vote for the pay raise you should be fired

That would sure be nice, wouldn’t it?

Bammer wrote:

Peeps wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Norris wrote:Yes, elected officials should never be allowed to make adjustments in policy based on current circumstances.

Introduction of a new tax or reversal of platform policy should require either referendum or new election. It is illegal in for private sector to bait and switch, it should be for governments as well.

change yes, but to blatantly lie is another. if you run on a platform of we wont raise school taxes and within 2 months you vote to raise taxes or you run on no political pay raise while im in office and you vote for the pay raise you should be fired

That would sure be nice, wouldn’t it?

#TeamCHUD on this one.

It would be insane to not allow leaders to adapt to changes on the ground.

BUT, as a constant reminder... if you dont want politicians to abuse a particular power, don't grant them that power in the first place.

One team. One tryout. Best (wo)men make the team. Done.

Bammer wrote:One team. One tryout. Best (wo)men make the team. Done.

Due to title IX, won't one team have to be the Women's team at least by name? Functionally we'd end up with the Men's team being varsity and the Women's team being junior varsity.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bammer wrote:One team. One tryout. Best (wo)men make the team. Done.

Due to title IX, won't one team have to be the Women's team at least by name? Functionally we'd end up with the Men's team being varsity and the Women's team being junior varsity.

Biden’s America, baby. Soak it in.