By the way, am I the only one who can't help snorting every time I hear, "Mr. Pecker"? It totally reminds me of one of the funniest scenes from the original Ghostbusters!
I'm surprised people aren't making endless puns
I think it's just too easy. No originality points for hitting softballs like that!
There are a lot of things that would be totally irresponsible to bring to the people for a direct vote via ballot measure. The Republicans here in Michigan think the minimum wage hike was one of them. The way it was bypassed is perfectly legal
That's... absurd. What you are saying boils down to "democracy is great and all, so long as the results are acceptable to he ruling party in its infinite wisdom."
Go to China with that stuff.
If the "representative" government was adequately reflecting the policy desires of citizens, a referendum wpuld not have been necessary in the first place.
Florida governor DeSantis, elected by the skin of his teeth, is saying he won't put into effect the referendum results restoring voting rights to former felons which was overwhelmingly popular (unlike him). He says the legislature must pass "implementing language" and he gets to sign off on it.
I generally don't get too worked up about this stuff - this chicanery doesn't happen where I live. But between this, and the hijinks in Michigan/Wisconsin/North Carolina, I din't see how you can deny that the GOP has made a distinct pivot away from fundamental American principles of democracy...
It was inevitable they weren't going to go through with lettings ex-felons vote. Again, it just passed by a MASSIVE margin in a popular referendum (mostly because I would gather libertarians probably crossed the aisle on this) and, again, they are just saying "nope, not gonna happen until we say so". Why are we even holding elections at this point??
It's worth pointing out that ballot measures aren't always necessarily good things. Direct, pure democracy doesn't work well, which is why we have representatives to deal with nitty gritty policy details. In California, Gray Davis attempted to use direct voter input to manage the budget, and the result was bankruptcy because people gladly voted for government spending but balked at taxes to pay for that spending. In general, it's better to have policymakers act on behalf of voters.
But the events in Michigan aren't an example of that. We're talking about an example where the GOP realized something was popular enough to pass as a ballot measure, realized it would be difficult to repeal if it did pass as a ballot measure, and then decided to pass it as a normal law just so they could repeal it after the election. We can debate the merits of ballot measures as a process, but government officials shouldn't be given the power to decide that some ballot measures can't be entrusted to the public while others can.
It's fundamentally dishonest to implement a policy before an election to make yourself more popular and then immediately undo the policy after the election, when voters can't punish you for it. If you genuinely believed that the minimum wage increase was wrong, you should be honest about your views and oppose it publicly--not pretend to support it before an election, and then oppose it right after the election
It's worth pointing out that ballot measures aren't always necessarily good things. Direct, pure democracy doesn't work well, which is why we have representatives to deal with nitty gritty policy details. In California, Gray Davis attempted to use direct voter input to manage the budget, and the result was bankruptcy because people gladly voted for government spending but balked at taxes to pay for that spending. In general, it's better to have policymakers act on behalf of voters.
But the events in Michigan aren't an example of that. We're talking about an example where the GOP realized something was popular enough to pass as a ballot measure, realized it would be difficult to repeal if it did pass as a ballot measure, and then decided to pass it as a normal law just so they could repeal it after the election. We can debate the merits of ballot measures as a process, but government officials shouldn't be given the power to decide that some ballot measures can't be entrusted to the public while others can.
It's fundamentally dishonest to implement a policy before an election to make yourself more popular and then immediately undo the policy after the election, when voters can't punish you for it. If you genuinely believed that the minimum wage increase was wrong, you should be honest about your views and oppose it publicly--not pretend to support it before an election, and then oppose it right after the election
I'll argue that the back-door was left in the process intentionally. It pretty much IS shenanigans, I agree, but it's perfectly legal shenanigans. The Democrats can use the same process to defeat a future ballot proposal they find repugnant.
I'm almost always amazed at the things they put on ballot proposals. I'm more of the opinion that your every day Joe or Jane Doe are not informed enough, or have enough critical thinking skills to be entrusted with important political decisions. I'm not saying they're stupid, I'm saying the average person doesn't have the time or inclination to investigate the ramifications of the things they're voting for or against. That's precisely why we have representatives to begin with!
The problem is that the representatives aren't actually representing the people. They are all in on pure self interest. Also, don't equate "This is legal" with "This is right". Something being legal isn't a free pass.
It's worth pointing out that ballot measures aren't always necessarily good things. Direct, pure democracy doesn't work well, which is why we have representatives to deal with nitty gritty policy details. In California, Gray Davis attempted to use direct voter input to manage the budget, and the result was bankruptcy because people gladly voted for government spending but balked at taxes to pay for that spending. In general, it's better to have policymakers act on behalf of voters.
But the events in Michigan aren't an example of that. We're talking about an example where the GOP realized something was popular enough to pass as a ballot measure, realized it would be difficult to repeal if it did pass as a ballot measure, and then decided to pass it as a normal law just so they could repeal it after the election. We can debate the merits of ballot measures as a process, but government officials shouldn't be given the power to decide that some ballot measures can't be entrusted to the public while others can.
It's fundamentally dishonest to implement a policy before an election to make yourself more popular and then immediately undo the policy after the election, when voters can't punish you for it. If you genuinely believed that the minimum wage increase was wrong, you should be honest about your views and oppose it publicly--not pretend to support it before an election, and then oppose it right after the election
You are saying that direct democracy doesn't work well because voters voted for spending once and against taxes. So it didn't work once, that's not necessarily a predictor of future results. Besides, having representatives is so great? Yeah, I think most'd agree that most politicians are no better at looking out for our needs than direct democracy might be. In fact, the Republican party nationally just did the same damn thing - even worse than not increasing taxes they massively cut taxes and then voted for massive spending. The exact thing you just criticized in the direct democracy example.
Direct Democracy might be better at this point. If there were equally comparable sample sizes I think direct democracy might win out as the superior system. As it is running our government on a system thought up over 200 years ago is showing it's age and abuse of loopholes and corruption are bringing it down.
And I agree it's fundamentally dishonest to implement a policy - perhaps even win a few votes for passing that popular policy - then immediately undo it. Yes it may be legal or possible but that doesn't make it right. It's like the stand your ground nonsense - yes you might legally be able to run up to someone and yell in their face until they take a swing at you at which point you can pretend you fear for your life and shoot them dead. It might be legal, but it's not right.
After all, Healthcare was the number one issue in 2018, and Democrats pounded Republicans everywhere over their burning desire to gut the Affordable Care Act. In response, Republican candidates across the country lied saying they'd protect those with pre-existing medical conditions. They were lying because they or their allies were all supporting the lawsuit attacking Obamacare's coverage of pre-existing conditions.
When the Republican plaintiffs filed their suit in April they characterized it as a legal emergency, telling the judge that “the sooner an order issues enjoining the A.C.A., the better, both so that all states and individuals can prepare to operate and live without the A.C.A.”
But despite the apparent urgency, Activist Judge O’Connor didn’t act. Not in May. Not in June. Not in July. Not in September. Not in October. And it must have slipped his mind in November.
In fact, he waited until December, after the elections and every runoff had concluded, to issue this deplorable ruling. Even though, again, the Republican attorneys general who brought the suit said it was of the utmost important that a ruling be made as quickly as possible.
So again, maybe this tactic was completely legal but it is not right. This activist judge could have ruled months and months ago since his mind was made up this whole time to tow the party line. But he, like the Michigan legislators, waited until the time when they think they can get away with it scot free. It's not right.
Yes, I'm aware of the chaos caused by unchecked ballot measures in California. But it's not relevant here (and the chaos it causes is specifically related to fiscal issues). And yes I'm aware of the reasons why we have representatives instead if direct democracy.
But representative democracy is still supposed to implement policies that reflect the will of the people. The ballot measures in Michigan teflect that thise representatives weren't getting it done. And now, not only have they passively failed to enact policies the public wants, but they have specifically worked to prevent such policies from being implemented. And have specifically tried ensured that they can't be held accountable at the polls - which is the very mechamnism that makes representative democracy work.
I'm not commenting on whether it's "legal." I'm saying I don't see how you can believe in the principles of American democracy and condone this behavior.
I don't believe in democracy. I somewhat believe in the system we have in the USA, but not even that completely, and that is not 'democracy' anyway, it's a representative republic. The American brand of democracy has checks and balances that ensure the tyranny of majority doesn't happen. The trouble with democracy is that there are far more people that stand to gain from screwing over people that are doing better than themselves than there are people that are doing well. It's a catch-22 that has no answer. Why bother elevating yourself when you can tear somebody else down?
Millions of peoples health insurance are at risk because they voted Republicans into office based on a big scary CARAVAN. Ah...
Or they voted him into office because the Democratic Party chose Hillary Clinton to run against him in their infinite wisdom. Great choice there...
I was talking about the midterms where the conservative fear was the CARAVAN but going back to 2106 your conservative fear was buttery males which seem quaint compared to the incompetence and corruption and self dealing we've seen the past two years, no?
Millions of peoples health insurance are at risk because they voted Republicans into office based on a big scary CARAVAN. Ah...
Or they voted him into office because the Democratic Party chose Hillary Clinton to run against him in their infinite wisdom. Great choice there...
I was talking about the midterms where the conservative fear was the CARAVAN but going back to 2106 your conservative fear was buttery males which seem quaint compared to the incompetence and corruption and self dealing we've seen the past two years, no?
Wait, it was a blue wave in '18 so thought you were talking about '16. The caravan thing didnt work unless you consider winning districts that they almost always win some kind of victory. The Dems had approximately 0 chance of winning EVERY district for pities sake!
You seem to think that because Trump is an asshole nobody will vote for other Republicans. That is definitely not the case...
Millions of peoples health insurance are at risk because they voted Republicans into office based on a big scary CARAVAN. Ah...
Or they voted him into office because the Democratic Party chose Hillary Clinton to run against him in their infinite wisdom. Great choice there...
I was talking about the midterms where the conservative fear was the CARAVAN but going back to 2106 your conservative fear was buttery males which seem quaint compared to the incompetence and corruption and self dealing we've seen the past two years, no?
Wait, it was a blue wave in '18 so thought you were talking about '16. The caravan thing didnt work unless you consider winning districts that they almost always win some kind of victory. The Dems had approximately 0 chance of winning EVERY district for pities sake!
You seem to think that because Trump is an asshole nobody will vote for other Republicans. That is definitely not the case...
I don't think this:
You seem to think that because Trump is an asshole nobody will vote for other Republicans. That is definitely not the case...
I think Trump is the worst - a conman and a corrupt compulsive liar. But other Republicans do not have Americans best interests at heart either. As evidence of that just look at North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin and this lawsuit aiming to take away people's healthcare. Dems have a few that represent 'we the people' and some corporate democracts that don't. Republicans on the other hand are completely bought off by corporations and billionaires, corrupt to the core.
Yes, I'm aware of the chaos caused by unchecked ballot measures in California. But it's not relevant here (and the chaos it causes is specifically related to fiscal issues). And yes I'm aware of the reasons why we have representatives instead if direct democracy.
But representative democracy is still supposed to implement policies that reflect the will of the people. The ballot measures in Michigan teflect that thise representatives weren't getting it done. And now, not only have they passively failed to enact policies the public wants, but they have specifically worked to prevent such policies from being implemented. And have specifically tried ensured that they can't be held accountable at the polls - which is the very mechamnism that makes representative democracy work.
I'm not commenting on whether it's "legal." I'm saying I don't see how you can believe in the principles of American democracy and condone this behavior.
I don't believe in democracy. I somewhat believe in the system we have in the USA, but not even that completely, and that is not 'democracy' anyway, it's a representative republic. The American brand of democracy has checks and balances that ensure the tyranny of majority doesn't happen. The trouble with democracy is that there are far more people that stand to gain from screwing over people that are doing better than themselves than there are people that are doing well. It's a catch-22 that has no answer. Why bother elevating yourself when you can tear somebody else down?
You're repeating yourself. The referendum has nothing to do with the tyranny of the majority. What, every time the public broadly supports a policy you don't like, you cry "tyranny of the majority?" Sorry, that's not what that phrase means.
A representative republic is supposed to represent and enact the policies that its citizens prefer. I.e. the policies that have broad - majority - support. There should be checks to prevent the majority from persecuting a minority - lime, say, protecting the rights of a member of a minority religion to wear what she needs to in the Capitol. The majority should not tyrannize a minority.
But a uniform policy setting the minimum wage, or pegging it to inflation - those do not persecute anyone. They are not a "tyranny of the majority." To suggest they are is pure sophistry.
No, politicians are elected to represent the best interests of the people they serve. If the people themselves support a policy that isn't in their best interest, I would hope the representative would have the balls to oppose it. That is NOT democracy, that is trusting that the people you elect have the wisdom and experience to do the right thing. Where you and I differ is on what the right thing is. I don't think just because 51% of people support something means it should automatically be enacted and outside of a few issues I doubt you do either. If the majority agrees with our own views it's always, "Ooh, ooh, yay democracy!", but when it's against our views it's "We have to go against the will of the people because they don't know any better". Case in point for Liberals is global warming and immigration. Case in point for Conservatives is minimum wage and healthcare.
Yes, I'm aware of the chaos caused by unchecked ballot measures in California. But it's not relevant here (and the chaos it causes is specifically related to fiscal issues). And yes I'm aware of the reasons why we have representatives instead if direct democracy.
But representative democracy is still supposed to implement policies that reflect the will of the people. The ballot measures in Michigan teflect that thise representatives weren't getting it done. And now, not only have they passively failed to enact policies the public wants, but they have specifically worked to prevent such policies from being implemented. And have specifically tried ensured that they can't be held accountable at the polls - which is the very mechamnism that makes representative democracy work.
I'm not commenting on whether it's "legal." I'm saying I don't see how you can believe in the principles of American democracy and condone this behavior.
I don't believe in democracy. I somewhat believe in the system we have in the USA, but not even that completely, and that is not 'democracy' anyway, it's a representative republic. The American brand of democracy has checks and balances that ensure the tyranny of majority doesn't happen. The trouble with democracy is that there are far more people that stand to gain from screwing over people that are doing better than themselves than there are people that are doing well. It's a catch-22 that has no answer. Why bother elevating yourself when you can tear somebody else down?
You're repeating yourself. The referendum has nothing to do with the tyranny of the majority. What, every time the public broadly supports a policy you don't like, you cry "tyranny of the majority?" Sorry, that's not what that phrase means.
A representative republic is supposed to represent and enact the policies that its citizens prefer. I.e. the policies that have broad - majority - support. There should be checks to prevent the majority from persecuting a minority - lime, say, protecting the rights of a member of a minority religion to wear what she needs to in the Capitol. The majority should not tyrannize a minority.
But a uniform policy setting the minimum wage, or pegging it to inflation - those do not persecute anyone. They are not a "tyranny of the majority." To suggest they are is pure sophistry.
No, politicians are elected to represent the best interests of the people they serve. If the people themselves support a policy that isn't in their best interest, I would hope the representative would have the balls to oppose it. That is NOT democracy, that is trusting that the people you elect have the wisdom and experience to do the right thing. Where you and I differ is on what the right thing is. I don't think just because 51% of people support something means it should automatically be enacted and outside of a few issues I doubt you do either. If the majority agrees with our own views it's always, "Ooh, ooh, yay democracy!", but when it's against our views it's "We have to go against the will of the people because they don't know any better". Case in point for Liberals is global warming and immigration. Case in point for Conservatives is minimum wage and healthcare.
Immigration is something you can argue with but global warming (actually more accurate term's climate change) is science.
It's similar to the example earlier of people who like spending but don't like taxes - global warming costs money to counter but nobody wants to pay it. And big energy and coal companies pay Republicans to ignore the problem. The cost of ignoring it is more expensive but Republicans are paid to pretend it's not real. And then people wonder why hurricanes and tornadoes and fires are worse and costing billions to fix instead of investing in cleaner energy that will save money in the long term but will cost energy companies a few extra pennies to get started.
Except the majority is with the libersl position when it comes to immigration and global warming...
Also global warming isn't a policy preference. It's a scientific fact. conservatives in the pockets of Big Oil are not trying to promote a different policy preference; they are trying to dupe the public into not believing the science, because if the public understood the facts, they would have policy preferences that would not be great for Big Oil.
Btw your fantastical description of representative government only works if there is real political accountability for the representatives. So it's telling that the GOP is working hard to undermine pitical accountability...
The so-called solutions to global warming are what I'm talking about, not the fact of global warming. Trying to stop it with a bullshit carbon tax that will hurt the poor far more than the rich is like stopping obesity by taxing food or stopping smoking by taxing cigarettes - oh wait they're already doing that. I guess poor people don't smoke anymore, right?
It is sad that more people aren't being held accountable for this disaster.
Wow, this poor artist guy sounds more like a space-cadet than a criminal. Yet another reason I don't trust democracy/crowd-rule, lynch mobs...
Well, the lynch mob has a right to be angry. The poor artist just didn't have a PR firm working for him to deflect the blame. The story does mention a civil case though hopefully bureaucratic heads will roll then. I also think "neglect of duty causing death" should be a criminal charge.
It is sad that more people aren't being held accountable for this disaster.
Wow, this poor artist guy sounds more like a space-cadet than a criminal. Yet another reason I don't trust democracy/crowd-rule, lynch mobs...
Well, the lynch mob has a right to be angry. The poor artist just didn't have a PR firm working for him to deflect the blame. The story does mention a civil case though hopefully bureaucratic heads will roll then. I also think "neglect of duty causing death" should be a criminal charge.
This guy should never have been in a position to be responsible for anybody other than himself though. It's really not his fault. His brain doesn't work the same way as yours or mine. Seriously, somebody dropped the ball for sure, but this poor fellow didn't even know he had it.
Except the majority is with the libersl position when it comes to immigration and global warming...
Also global warming isn't a policy preference. It's a scientific fact. conservatives in the pockets of Big Oil are not trying to promote a different policy preference; they are trying to dupe the public into not believing the science, because if the public understood the facts, they would have policy preferences that would not be great for Big Oil.
Btw your fantastical description of representative government only works if there is real political accountability for the representatives. So it's telling that the GOP is working hard to undermine political accountability...
The so-called solutions to global warming are what I'm talking about, not the fact of global warming.
Dude, I don't know what planet you're living on, but there is no kind of debate going on between Republicans and Democrats over how to address global warming. The nutjob conspiracy theorists with their heads in the sand denying that climate change is even happening, and generally attacking science to provide intellectual cover for it, have completely taken over the GOP.
I would LOVE to have an adult conversation about the pros and cons of this or that policy to address climate change. Is a carbon tax a bad idea? Great, let's hear some other ideas from conservatives! I honestly think they would have good ideas. I mean, there used to be conservatives who cared about the environment. But now, conservatives are not producing any ideas. Conservatives are ostracized if they don't hew to the party line that "climate change is a hoax" or "the science isn't clear" or somesuch BS. (Cripes, they shut down the goddam Weekly Standard!!)
Whenever conservatives decide to pull their heads out of the butt-cheeks of oil-company executives sand and have a real conversation about solutions, the rest of the world is long since ready...
Well you can debate me I guess if that's a way to vent your frustrations. Personally I think that we need to find ways to deal with it myself. Even if Europe and the US are able to somehow curb carbon emissions (doubtful) there is no way short of war we're going to force the developing countries to tow the line. Am I wrong?
Can the newly elected Democratic house just not pass a bill that puts the tax back on to the ACA? Maybe dangle a % for % for Trump's wall or some other stupid compromise.
They could. But no way in hell would the Senate approve it, or Trump sign it into law, and the Democrats don't have a veto-proof House majority.
I'd do it anyways, because it will help hammer in the point that the piles of dead Americans for lack of medical care is their fault. And yes, piles of dead Americans. Upwards of 10,000 Americans per year because of failure to get treatment or delays in getting treatment, the numbers were run back almost 2 years ago when the Repubs started 2017 trying to kill the ACA and what the effects of repealing actually were.
"See, we're trying to help, but these heartless Republicans want to watch Americans die."
Conservatives are not bigoted assholes who want to fuck over poor people for the fun of it (despite what many of the folks on this forum seem to think). They want the same things you all want but they want to give people the ability to earn it themselves rather than having things given to them. It can be brutal, yes, but their philosophy tends to think in terms of individuals rather than groups. That is also why they distrust powerful government.
Neither side ever gets the opportunity to test their theories over any appreciable length of time so I'm resigned to the fact that no political or economic theory will ever be proven one way or the other...
Yes, they are. I've met them in real life.
No, you don't magically give people "the ability to earn it themselves" when they're already running flat out just to survive. "Give 110% effort, and you can live the American dream!". Bullshit.
Define "appreciable length of time"? Because Republicans have repeatedly had 8+ years to try out their theories of no taxation somehow works economic miracles. They had the 1980s, recessions. They had the 2000s, recessions. Scott Walker and Sam Brownback had 7 years of governorship of their states, and turned them to shit for slashing state revenues.
1940s and 1950s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom. 1990s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom.
Basically, taxing the wealthy to give poor people money to buy stuff, does more for the economy than not taxing and letting the wealthy stash it in investments to give corporations money to buy back their own stocks.
That is demonstrable fact. And there have been a heap of government programs that save more money than the programs cost by what the program does, such as research and implementation of increasing energy efficiency.
Henry Ford had the right of it "I pay my workers well so they can buy my cars". If corporations won't do it, it should be government's responsibility to do it. This is an imbalance in the structure of society.
I don't believe in democracy. I somewhat believe in the system we have in the USA, but not even that completely, and that is not 'democracy' anyway, it's a representative republic. The American brand of democracy has checks and balances that ensure the tyranny of majority doesn't happen.
So what do you believe in? The tyranny of the minority? Because that's what we are having.
When you're getting ballot referendums with 80 or 90% support, and you decline to implement those referendums, you'd better have a damn good reason.
I would be looking into recall elections because that's clearly not following the will of the electorate. I would not be surprised if those states disallow them, however.
These are not policy measures barely getting 51% support.
Comments
As always with the constant Trump administration turnover, it's a good riddance but then you wonder how bad the next corrupt goon he finds will be.
As for Zinke, I can hear Queen playing in the background; Another One Bites the Dust...
But the events in Michigan aren't an example of that. We're talking about an example where the GOP realized something was popular enough to pass as a ballot measure, realized it would be difficult to repeal if it did pass as a ballot measure, and then decided to pass it as a normal law just so they could repeal it after the election. We can debate the merits of ballot measures as a process, but government officials shouldn't be given the power to decide that some ballot measures can't be entrusted to the public while others can.
It's fundamentally dishonest to implement a policy before an election to make yourself more popular and then immediately undo the policy after the election, when voters can't punish you for it. If you genuinely believed that the minimum wage increase was wrong, you should be honest about your views and oppose it publicly--not pretend to support it before an election, and then oppose it right after the election
I'm almost always amazed at the things they put on ballot proposals. I'm more of the opinion that your every day Joe or Jane Doe are not informed enough, or have enough critical thinking skills to be entrusted with important political decisions. I'm not saying they're stupid, I'm saying the average person doesn't have the time or inclination to investigate the ramifications of the things they're voting for or against. That's precisely why we have representatives to begin with!
Direct Democracy might be better at this point. If there were equally comparable sample sizes I think direct democracy might win out as the superior system. As it is running our government on a system thought up over 200 years ago is showing it's age and abuse of loopholes and corruption are bringing it down.
And I agree it's fundamentally dishonest to implement a policy - perhaps even win a few votes for passing that popular policy - then immediately undo it. Yes it may be legal or possible but that doesn't make it right. It's like the stand your ground nonsense - yes you might legally be able to run up to someone and yell in their face until they take a swing at you at which point you can pretend you fear for your life and shoot them dead. It might be legal, but it's not right.
There are people that suspect that the activist republican judge in Texas waited until now to strike down obamacare.
After all, Healthcare was the number one issue in 2018, and Democrats pounded Republicans everywhere over their burning desire to gut the Affordable Care Act. In response, Republican candidates across the country lied saying they'd protect those with pre-existing medical conditions. They were lying because they or their allies were all supporting the lawsuit attacking Obamacare's coverage of pre-existing conditions.
When the Republican plaintiffs filed their suit in April they characterized it as a legal emergency, telling the judge that “the sooner an order issues enjoining the A.C.A., the better, both so that all states and individuals can prepare to operate and live without the A.C.A.”
But despite the apparent urgency, Activist Judge O’Connor didn’t act. Not in May. Not in June. Not in July. Not in September. Not in October. And it must have slipped his mind in November.
In fact, he waited until December, after the elections and every runoff had concluded, to issue this deplorable ruling. Even though, again, the Republican attorneys general who brought the suit said it was of the utmost important that a ruling be made as quickly as possible.
So again, maybe this tactic was completely legal but it is not right. This activist judge could have ruled months and months ago since his mind was made up this whole time to tow the party line. But he, like the Michigan legislators, waited until the time when they think they can get away with it scot free. It's not right.
You seem to think that because Trump is an asshole nobody will vote for other Republicans. That is definitely not the case...
It's similar to the example earlier of people who like spending but don't like taxes - global warming costs money to counter but nobody wants to pay it. And big energy and coal companies pay Republicans to ignore the problem. The cost of ignoring it is more expensive but Republicans are paid to pretend it's not real. And then people wonder why hurricanes and tornadoes and fires are worse and costing billions to fix instead of investing in cleaner energy that will save money in the long term but will cost energy companies a few extra pennies to get started.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/americas-new-tobacco-crisis-the-rich-stopped-smoking-the-poor-didnt/2017/06/13/a63b42ba-4c8c-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.5cd5272b5f7b
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/magazine/oakland-warehouse-fire-ghost-ship.html
It is sad that more people aren't being held accountable for this disaster.
The story does mention a civil case though hopefully bureaucratic heads will roll then. I also think "neglect of duty causing death" should be a criminal charge.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your-money/republicans-democrats-charity-philanthropy.amp.html
I'd do it anyways, because it will help hammer in the point that the piles of dead Americans for lack of medical care is their fault. And yes, piles of dead Americans. Upwards of 10,000 Americans per year because of failure to get treatment or delays in getting treatment, the numbers were run back almost 2 years ago when the Repubs started 2017 trying to kill the ACA and what the effects of repealing actually were.
"See, we're trying to help, but these heartless Republicans want to watch Americans die."
Yes, they are. I've met them in real life.
No, you don't magically give people "the ability to earn it themselves" when they're already running flat out just to survive. "Give 110% effort, and you can live the American dream!". Bullshit.
Define "appreciable length of time"? Because Republicans have repeatedly had 8+ years to try out their theories of no taxation somehow works economic miracles. They had the 1980s, recessions. They had the 2000s, recessions. Scott Walker and Sam Brownback had 7 years of governorship of their states, and turned them to shit for slashing state revenues.
1940s and 1950s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom. 1990s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom.
Basically, taxing the wealthy to give poor people money to buy stuff, does more for the economy than not taxing and letting the wealthy stash it in investments to give corporations money to buy back their own stocks.
That is demonstrable fact. And there have been a heap of government programs that save more money than the programs cost by what the program does, such as research and implementation of increasing energy efficiency.
Henry Ford had the right of it "I pay my workers well so they can buy my cars". If corporations won't do it, it should be government's responsibility to do it. This is an imbalance in the structure of society. So what do you believe in? The tyranny of the minority? Because that's what we are having.
When you're getting ballot referendums with 80 or 90% support, and you decline to implement those referendums, you'd better have a damn good reason.
I would be looking into recall elections because that's clearly not following the will of the electorate. I would not be surprised if those states disallow them, however.
These are not policy measures barely getting 51% support.