Is the California Recall Unconstitutional/Fair?

[HomerJS]

Fox saying that Newson had nothing to offer. Only running on an anti-Trump theme. Comparing Larry to Trump. Well.... that was the point, Fox News. Sometimes people in "some" states prefer not to burn everything down considering the wild fires are doing a pretty good job already.

I guess the right wing media just don't get. Insanity is not nor has ever been a political platform to run on. That is, unless you live in a southern state. Fox is shocked that Californians would turn down insanity for sticking with sanity.

I was surprised that Elder conceded without using the rigged card, however I would bet a day at Blacks Beach that Trump called and urged Elder to cry foul and claim millions of votes came in from ballot factories ran by Tom Hanks and George Clooney.

So what did Elder have to offer? General elections are about choices. If the choice for POTUS is AOC vs Trump, I'm choosing AOC every time.

 

[pmv]

Given the notion that children are not really party affiliated how would you account for one child growing up liberal and another a Hoover Institute arrogant asshole?

Not that uncommon - check the Mitford sisters - or Peirs and Jeremy Corbyn, for that matter.

 

[gothuevos]

With this spread, even a better repug alternative would still have yielded the same end result, just with a somewhat narrower margin.

But let's be serious here. There were many other repugs on that candidate list. Elder was chosen as the favorite because he is farthest to the right and closest to Trump.

Candidates like this are not aberrations any more. They are who conservative voters prefer. Even in a deep blue state where it makes no sense to not choose a moderate, he was their choice.

And just look at the 2016 primary. Down the stretch, it wasn't Trump v and more moderate candidate. It was Trump v Ted Cruz. Those were their number 1 and 2 choices. The more moderate candidates like Bush and Kasich never had a chance. What does that say about conservative voters?

Yes and I am not quite sure why they feel so agitated.

They have the Supreme Court and hundreds of other federal judges.
Taxes are generally at the lowest levels in some time.
Guns are still as easy to obtain.
Abortion is getting chipped away at.
Filibuster still intact.

Why so mad all the time?

 

[K1052]

Why so mad all the time?

If I may Moonbeam for a moment: Their self-hate is cannot be extinguished by any metric of success.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes and I am not quite sure why they feel so agitated.

They have the Supreme Court and hundreds of other federal judges.
Taxes are generally at the lowest levels in some time.
Guns are still as easy to obtain.
Abortion is getting chipped away at.
Filibuster still intact.

Why so mad all the time?

Because they’ve been brainwashed to be riled up. Without a riled up base republicans would never win any elections or even have a platform to be heard from. Ironically, the core republicans would be considered “sheeple” by any outside observer.

 

[K1052]

If bad takes could get you prosecuted Chris Cillizza would get the electric chair.

 

[darkswordsman17]

They brought in extra votes in from Mexico on donkeys, ballots engraved on corn tortilla based paper. We will examine the ballots for hints of corn.

I will gladly submit my shit to Cyber Ninjas so they can sort through it for corn.

 

[VRAMdemon]

If bad takes could get you prosecuted Chris Cillizza would get the electric chair.


View attachment 50281

What? ... It's been reported that Elder has conceded. By admitting he lost, he just gave up his future in the GOP.

 

[darkswordsman17]

What? ... It's been reported that Elder has conceded. By admitting he lost, he just gave up his future in the GOP.

You fail upwards in the GOP.

 

[VRAMdemon]

The Republicans tried yet again to make an end-run around democracy in California, and failed yet again. This time

 

[Moonbeam]

Not that uncommon - check the Mitford sisters - or Peirs and Jeremy Corbyn, for that matter.

I was not suggesting that people rarely are different as adults, having far less differentiation as children. I was asking how one can account for the fact that some grow up identifying the Stanford Hoover people as god’s own arrogant assholes while another becomes the object of such a description. How did the person providing that definition come to be able to see them that way and how did those so defined fail to see themselves that way or become so perhaps out of some nasty intent.

I am looking for some objective understanding of what determines our world views since I personally come into this with the opinion that ‘both sides’ as a shorthand descriptor of these weltanschauungs likely fancy themselves as the more objective. Owing to this difference in self reference I don’t feel satisfied to let pass without some critical evaluation the dismissal of say, the link I posted based solely on someone’s assurance it was expressed by an asshole.

Do I know that X is an asshole because someone says he is? Can an asshole provide a valid evaluation? How do I get to something more scientifically based than unsupported opinion.

if I had some psychological definition of what constitutes ‘asshole’ for example, and how children become such, I could then begin to look for commonalities in the histories of Stanford Hoover types that would mark them as aberrant.

Then I could move on to ask if the opinions of assholes should be ignored on that basis alone.

 

[woolfe9998]

If bad takes could get you prosecuted Chris Cillizza would get the electric chair.


View attachment 50281

Just read Cilliza's post-mortem on the recall. He says that by getting 47% of the replace vote, Elder was so far ahead of everyone else that he is now "the putative leader of the republican party in California." Of course, republicans can't be elected dog catcher in this state, except in some low pop rural counties. Maybe he could get a seat in the House in one of those districts. He'll never win a statewide election. So I fail to see how it matters.

 

[Moonbeam]

If I may Moonbeam for a moment: Their self-hate is cannot be extinguished by any metric of success.

I do think you are on to something there.

Suppose we hate ourselves and have repressed the memories of how we were made to feel that way, but say it was to cause us not to deviate from some societally affirmed moral standard such that adherents are the winners in this life and those who fail to live up are the losers.

This would create a whole body of marching morons dedicating their lives to the acquisition of all those trinkets attendant to whatever it was imagined that were markers of success. Say they were things like money and fame and influence, hard work, self discipline, education, career, etc., they would all become the Golden Calf, the alter at which we worship, the things once achieved that would prove we were not worthless.

I can easily imagine that having become a priest of that moral establishment would be something one could easily become an asshole to protect.

And imagine if it were all false and empty, that the only real heaven is the one we were born into as children, before the bricks went in the walls.

 

[pmv]

I was not suggesting that people rarely are different as adults, having far less differentiation as children. I was asking how one can account for the fact that some grow up identifying the Stanford Hoover people as god’s own arrogant assholes while another becomes the object of such a description. How did the person providing that definition come to be able to see them that way and how did those so defined fail to see themselves that way or become so perhaps out of some nasty intent.

I am looking for some objective understanding of what determines our world views since I personally come into this with the opinion that ‘both sides’ as a shorthand descriptor of these weltanschauungs likely fancy themselves as the more objective. Owing to this difference in self reference I don’t feel satisfied to let pass without some critical evaluation the dismissal of say, the link I posted based solely on someone’s assurance it was expressed by an asshole.

Do I know that X is an asshole because someone says he is? Can an asshole provide a valid evaluation? How do I get to something more scientifically based than unsupported opinion.

if I had some psychological definition of what constitutes ‘asshole’ for example, and how children become such, I could then begin to look for commonalities in the histories of Stanford Hoover types that would mark them as aberrant.

Then I could move on to ask if the opinions of assholes should be ignored on that basis alone.

Generally it's down to self-interest, and depends on your class, race, gender, sexuality, and so on. People tend to have the ideology that benefits the demographic to which they belong. The Hoover Institution largely exists to further the interests of rich white guys, that's its purpose, that's why members of that demographic fund it, so people who belong to, or are products of, that demographic, tend to be drawn to work for it.

The US is a bit different from Europe in that racial group self-interest seems to generally take primacy over class identity...but sadly it seems as if Europe is going the same way.

 

[Moonbeam]

What? ... It's been reported that Elder has conceded. By admitting he lost, he just gave up his future in the GOP.

Not really. A skilled conservative will take every political position there is providing plausible deniability against charges of fanaticism because those who support them will only hear the fanatical parts of what they say. “I am going to be gracious in defeat. You go out and prove the election was stolen.”

 

[Moonbeam]

Generally it's down to self-interest, and depends on your class, race, gender, sexuality, and so on. People tend to have the ideology that benefits the demographic to which they belong. The Hoover Institution largely exists to further the interests of rich white guys, that's its purpose, that's why members of that demographic fund it, so people who belong to, or are products of, that demographic, tend to be drawn to work for it.

The US is a bit different from Europe in that racial group self-interest seems to generally take primacy over class identity...but sadly it seems as if Europe is going the same way.

I see self interest as opinions we have acquired as to what it is about us that makes us of self worth. These are unexamined delusions that exist, therefore, at an unconscious level. What we call self interest is ego identification, conditioned by past experience, inculcated by force and violence, intimidation and threat. It is our invisible psychological prison. Any threat to our status as card carrying respectable members of whatever standing we hold to our imagined great credit will elicit the same fear and violence toward others as what put us in that cage.

We are all nice and liberal when our egos are not threatened, where our delusional self worth isn’t challenged, but the dogs of war are unleashed when our ego status is challenged.

The only exit from this, it seems to me, rests on the possibility that the answer to the question of whether a person can transcend ego identity is yes.

 

[manly]

Just read Cilliza's post-mortem on the recall. He says that by getting 47% of the replace vote, Elder was so far ahead of everyone else that he is now "the putative leader of the republican party in California." Of course, republicans can't be elected dog catcher in this state, except in some low pop rural counties. Maybe he could get a seat in the House in one of those districts. He'll never win a statewide election. So I fail to see how it matters.

It's not just Cillizza, political commentators within our state were saying the same thing about Elder. As you explained, I think Cillizza is both right and wrong. Right that Elder is the face of the party if he wants to be. Wrong (or simply ignorant) that Elder can have any electoral impact statewide as this leader.

 

[trenchfoot]

The problem with Repubs is that they identify themselves as victims (of their own making no less) while victimizing everyone and everything that gets in the way of having their way. And it seems they have no problems being the masters of hypocrisy in all that they do and say.

It seems the fear and hate campaign their leadership have been running on their rank and file membership has spiraled out of control. It's spun itself into a campaign of panic and doom necessitating the express use of violence and an assault on the very Constitution and Bill of Rights they fancy themselves as the stalwart protectors thereof (Jan 6). Again the hypocrisy problem raises its ugly head and gets chopped off with a wink and a smirk. No problem to look at, no problem exists.

 

[manly]

Thank god California didn’t get crazier.

I feel my home state has plenty of challenging problems, but hey at least we're not Florida man.

 

[vi edit]

I just want to know what crypt the GOP keeps plucking these fucking ghouls from. Hot god damn do they have a bucket full of chucklefucks at their disposal to roll out each election.

 

[uclaLabrat]

When you're a party of unabashed grifters, it's hard to find clown shoes too big to fill.

Wonder if Elder can primary nunes and put the cow out to pasture so to speak.

 

[manly]

When you're a party of unabashed grifters, it's hard to find clown shoes too big to fill.

Wonder if Elder can primary nunes and put the cow out to pasture so to speak.

I doubt Elder, being a coastal elite, wants to move to the Central Valley.

 

[hal2kilo]

I doubt Elder, being a coastal elite, wants to move to the Central Valley.

Yea, he'd fit well in American Graffiti land.

 

[MrSquished]

Who woulda thunk it

 

[trenchfoot]

Who woulda thunk it

View attachment 50322

Ya' see, those maps shows all of the areas of the state where very tall cliffs are located and where Repub lemmings, enchanted by Trump's lies have gathered in droves and are hurling themselves over those cliffs because Trump told them it was their right to do so no matter how loudly and persuasively the nation's scientists are begging them to listen to reason.