A Marine general had to remind his soldiers and staff which country they swore to protect and serve
https://www.yahoo.com/news/marine-general-orders-removal-confederate-184316576.html
In any caucus system your political affiliation is determined by which caucus place you go to, so this isn’t anything new. We always had Catholic priests in the caucuses where I’ve been; Jesus was obviously a Democrat (or possibly a socialist).
From the article:
Members of the Bahá’í Faith have told lawmakers that pledging support to a political party is a violation of their religion.
If they are not allowed to commit to a party, why should they get a say in who is the voice of that party? I’m not a member of a Bahai congregation, I’m pretty sure that means I don’t get to vote for membership in one of their Spiritual Assemblies.
UCSC has asked students to snitch. Faculty statewide have objected to this:
(BTW, Newfield’s blog is always an excellent resource for UC system news of this sort.)
I don’t think the “coronavirus grade reporting” thing you mention at UCSD is connected to the UCSC strikes. There is always pressure on faculty to keep running grade records on the campus course management systems (and otherwise mechanize/deindividualize their grading process), and I wouldn’t be surprised if the UCSD admin is cynically using the virus as an additional lever.
And the Bahai congregation doesn’t have any sort of impact on your daily life, while the democratic party does on the lives of the congregants. So yeah, they should get a say in the primaries. Let’s stop going back to the bad old days of restricted primaries that excludes minorities, shall we?
Please don’t put words in my mouth. Opening the parties to all, and making it possible to register on the day of the primary, were both good things. I don’t want to undo those changes, and of course any Bahai congregant in the US electorate who wants to can vote in the Democratic primary is welcome to do so. If their local party wants to make signing up for the party a condition for voting, that is not somehow antidemocratic.
If “impact on daily life” was a relevant condition here, then everyone in the world should be able to vote for US president, president of the UN General Assembly, and pope.
I think it is antidemocratic, and given the very real history of discriminatory practices by the democratic party until relatively recently should give them pause for making decisions like this.
It should be, actually.
Why not? The world is ever more interconnected and what we do here has a measurable impact on people around the world. And why is the UN gen. sec not a position we ALL vote on?
In fact, WHY aren’t more aspects of our lives NOT democratic?
They probably should be. There are structural issues with the 2-party system, but that’s the locus of the problem, not in any given party’s rules.
Fortunately, the Democratic party has since the late 60s been dominated by people who at least nominally subscribe to open principles, and they have worked hard to make the party more accessible, and easy to join. (In fact, one of the compelling arguments that made registration at the polls instead of in advance possible was the recognition that this draws more people into the party.)
Like any organization, it fails or succeeds on who its most active members are and what they do for the party. It is reasonable to expect someone who gets to vote for the party’s leadership and platform to make at least the minimal commitment of being willing to call themselves a Democrat for at least a little while (cf Bloomberg). I do see that it can be problematic in some communities to have that be as public as it is in the caucus system.
Never mind. Clearly, since I fucked up grammar, I am not worthy to talk to you.
Not my intention. Is that (edited) better?
A very good idea. We could even start with my state, that for the primary, requires that you declare your party six weeks prior to the previous general election - so to vote in the upcoming Presidential primary, you had to be registered with a party back last September - and not moved to a new address since. Yes, the point is to disenfranchise the transient population. Benighted, but a lot of civil rights laws don’t apply to primary elections; the parties, says the law, have the right to choose their candidates any way they please, provided they garner enough votes or signatures to appear on the general election ballot.
We might need to go to ranked-preference elections first, though, to reduce the power of the parties. The stated rationale for closed-primary rules (as opposed to the actual rationale) was that there had been historic situations where Party A had an unopposed candidate, so its voters crossed the aisle in an open primary to spoil the candidacy for Party B. That’s much less of a risk if you first mitigate the risk that a third-party candidate will merely be a spoiler. Of course, that change is a threat to both parties, so it will happen on the day that Auld Nick takes up a new post as a ski instructor on the glorious powder slopes of the Alternative Destination.
Nope. Steve King (both of them) voted aye.
The nays were
Amash
Gohmert Massie
Yoho
and the cowards
Bonamici
Butterfield
Byrne
Holding
Johnson (LA)
Lawrence Lawson (FL)
Lewis
Loudermilk
McEachin
Mullin
Richmond Rooney (FL)
Sires
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
The typeface would code for party, if the browsers cooperated.
This is NOT GOOD:
She is so effing gross.
Trom the article, it’s unclear which of Cucinelli’s policies are suspended. The changes he made to asylum rules are definitely at issue, not sure about the public charge rule.
Considering that Fox’s older viewers are pretty much Fox’s only viewers, this could be seen as corporate suicide. I would love for Fox to go away, but I would prefer to not involve so much suffering. I guess I’m just an old softy.
