It’s bad enough that ONE person in that marriage is gay, but BOTH??
I know, but if you’re Hawaiian or Marshallese, you feel 100% American, but unrepresented. My point is if it’s always Illinois, Illinois would have an outsize influence, as Iowa has now. If we changed it each year, it’d mean the rest of the country would be less ignored.
It’s not like she could go to the Republican caucus (aka the back room that directly gave 38 delegates to Trump).
https://www.google.com/search?q=republican+primary+2020
She probably looked at the pictures and picked Pete.
Than Iowa moves their date up eight days. Silly but true.
Iowa state legislature passed a law (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/01/why_does_iowa_get_to_go_first.html)
Rotating which state got to go first in each election cycle would mean it would take a full two centuries for everyone to get their turn. And that’s assuming A) the current system of government even lasts that long, and B) no new states join the union in the interim.
Fairest solution would be to ditch the system that put one state first at all. Second-fairest would be to give priority to states more representative of the nation as a whole.
I bet she religiously watches Faux News.
The subext here is that there is a class of voter with a knee jerk dislike of anyone associated with DC and no further thoughts on politics.
There is nothing from Jesus that is homophobic, though there are some things you can forceably interpret that way. And Jesus (at least per the bible we’ve got) preached explicitly against the Kosher laws and other biblical laws in the old testament that also contain proscriptions against homosexuality.
But the letters of Paul contain several screeds against homosexuality. Plenty of theologians and Christian sects disregard that, because it’s Paul not Jesus. It was well after the fact. Those might be latter additions. And it’s more of a political/sectarian attack or smear than a cogent religious arguement so it in no way shape or form needs to be considered doctrine.
But as much as they like to quote Leviticus, it’s the Paul stuff that all the hate is based in. Not that most of the people who buy in understand the distinction.
And yet they’ve apparently only managed to do so with 25 or so precincts out of mote than 1700. There have been issues getting at those “preference cards” and mounting a count because there wasn’t a process set up to do so. Cards were apparently collected in generic plastic bins, not locked ballot boxes. And in order to count them they were being tracked down, and driven to the IDP offices. Cause they weren’t collected, store, or transported as a matter of course. Just kinda chilling till “oh no”.
So despite the fact that they have been attempting to do this since last night, they still haven’t gotten any results out of it. And they’re now announcing that the reporting app/system is functional so they can finally get results in. If they had been able to do it manually, then why is the app being back this late in the game neccisary?
I’m not seeing much in the way of “doomsday” headlines either. What I’m seeing is open criticism of the caucus system, and the primacy of Iowa in the process.
Which is good. Caucuses are an undemocratic shit show, and the level of influence we’ve given to a small, low turnout state where caucus voters are 90+% white warps the whole process.
All time record caucus turn out out in I think 2008! And it was still something like 10% of eligible voters.
Not an expert on constitutional law here, so I may be wrong about this, but:
Iowa law specifies when the caucuses should start, and instead of specifying a date, specifies it as something like a week ahead of all other states. So if someone were to move it up to mid-January, Iowa’s would move up to early January. I guess if Nebraska decided to have their primary on New Year’s Day, Iowa would move theirs to January -7th or something. It’s a law, it’s not required to make sense.
In a similar vein, I don’t think there’s a punishment, aside from possibly Timelords hauling you off to Gallifrey to stand trial for trying to use laws to wreck time. It might create a lot of work for lawyers, but it’s not a crime, and anyone doing it would be out of Iowa’s jurisdiction anyway, because they’d have to be making laws in another state to do it at all.
The choices in the 2012 election were unusually reasonable
I mean, I wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney, but as Republicans go he’s not that bad
I think that rule went out with Mosaic Law. Same with eating shellfish, etc. Orthodox Jews still adhere to it but Christians are no longer required to.
Even when I know who you mean, I still keep thinking that people are talking about the DJ.
Well, she was Team Amy first. Probably because she’s also eaten a salad with a comb.
I guarantee no one will be able to argue her out of her religiously based opinion, but we can sure as hell shame her into voting against the party in November.
It’s crucial for the left to figure out a way to accept people like this woman, without accepting her views. This is a numbers game, and you’ve got to try to win even the hearts and minds that you don’t really like.
Yeah, screw Paul. Saul was dispatched to destroy the early Christians and then “converted” and destroyed them from within. (Why won’t anyone subscribe to my newsletter?!?)
Ditching the system that puts one state over all sounds good. If it turns out there’s an advantage to a longer primary, doing it in clusters of 10 or so, a Super-Duper Tuesday, would give everyone a turn every quarter century.
It’s not neccisarily a constitutional thing. And there are a couple of hold ups on federal rules to fix the issue.
First the constitution gives states the power to administer elections. Second primaries and caucuses aren’t technically elections. They’re the internal processes of private organizations for selecting a candidate. The primary states have decided to require that process run through the election system for oversight and access reasons. The caucus states leave the parties mostly in control.
Before the modern process (the “smoke filled room” period) smaller, more rural, whiter (or white supremacist) states could influence things disproportionate to their size. Because the process was based around candidates negotiating and bargaining with individual state and even district level parties to garner delegates.
Keeping caucuses around is an attempt to keep that influence. As is smaller states scheduling their primaries earlier. Its all about states, and parties maintaining control disproportionate to their actual populations.
New Hampshire passed a law requiring they hold the first primary. Iowa wanted to get ahead of that so they passed a similar law requiring they have the first caucus. If two states had conflicting laws, it would spur a court clusterfuck that would ultimately undermine states ability to schedule this stuff. Which wouldn’t suite the small states desire to make themselves more influential. So they don’t.
Though it might be interesting to see that happen. And it could potentially be a pathway to a single primary day. It would take a big populous state that doesn’t much care, passing a New Hampshire or Iowa style law and filing law suits.
Dude hadn’t ever met Jesus or anyone involved with him. Just had a spontaneous vision where he claims Jesus said “your in charge now bro!”.
The Dems should make their first (random, non-Iowa) primary around 2 January. Merry Xmas, Iowa!
How can we when she won’t accept us (LGBTQ+) as we are, to the point where she would vote against us because of it? We aren’t rejecting her vote, she is rejecting her candidate. This feels very victim blamey. There is no workable middle ground here, we can’t just decide to not be gay or trans for her.
