Re: Reproductive rights will be on the ballot November 8 in Michigan.

by AvgMSUJoe 2022-09-09, 08:27

Trapper Gus wrote:FWIW A proposal to change term limits will also be on the ballot.

I don't understand this one. 14 years in both chambers or 12 in one... Why does it matter? I do like the financial disclosures, but I'd guess some creative accounting would have to be done for these tools to get their cut from the dark money... and what everyday goober really pays attention to that shit anyway? (except "political" type people)

by AvgMSUJoe 2022-09-09, 08:39

MSC Chief Justice Mary McCormack wrote:“They would disenfranchise millions of Michiganders not because they believe the many thousands of Michiganders who signed the proposal were confused by it, but because they think they have identified a technicality that allows them to do so, a game of gotcha gone very bad,” McCormack said. “What a sad marker of the times.”

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-09-09, 08:48

AvgMSUJoe wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:FWIW A proposal to change term limits will also be on the ballot.

I don't understand this one. 14 years in both chambers or 12 in one... Why does it matter? I do like the financial disclosures, but I'd guess some creative accounting would have to be done for these tools to get their cut from the dark money... and what everyday goober really pays attention to that shit anyway? (except "political" type people)

I am strongly opposed to term limits for legislators at all levels of government in today's world, where the issues and laws are highly complex and they are just learning their jobs in the first ten years, so I don't like this much at all.

However, 12 years in one chamber is better than 6 in the House and 8 in the Senate, and the watered-down financial disclosure, (which is what the opponents are bitching about, the watering-down, not the financial disclosure) is better than what exists now. Sure, mostly meaningless, but might allow really bluntest cases of self-interest to be made public.

Right now, I am inclined to support this, though that is about 49% to 51%

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-09-09, 08:49

AvgMSUJoe wrote:
MSC Chief Justice Mary McCormack wrote:“They would disenfranchise millions of Michiganders not because they believe the many thousands of Michiganders who signed the proposal were confused by it, but because they think they have identified a technicality that allows them to do so, a game of gotcha gone very bad,” McCormack said. “What a sad marker of the times.”

While what she said was correct, I wish that, as a judge, she hadn't said that.

It will be used politically the next time she is running for election.

by AvgMSUJoe 2022-09-09, 09:14

Trapper Gus wrote:
AvgMSUJoe wrote:

I don't understand this one. 14 years in both chambers or 12 in one... Why does it matter? I do like the financial disclosures, but I'd guess some creative accounting would have to be done for these tools to get their cut from the dark money... and what everyday goober really pays attention to that shit anyway? (except "political" type people)

I am strongly opposed to term limits for legislators at all levels of government in today's world, where the issues and laws are highly complex and they are just learning their jobs in the first ten years, so I don't like this much at all.

However, 12 years in one chamber is better than 6 in the House and 8 in the Senate, and the watered-down financial disclosure, which is what the opponents are bitching about, the watering-down, not the financial disclosure) is better than what exists now. Sure, mostly meaningless, but might allow really bluntest cases of self-interest to be made public.

Right now, I am inclined to support this, though that is about 49% to 51%

I agree, if we wanted "good government" we would get rid of term limits all together... and also pay legislators quite a bit more. "Career politicians" are better than the goobers that are running now (like my local house candidate... the sheriff who's claim to fame is he didn't enforce public health rules during covid.) No one worth a shit will leave a real career for 70k/year for 12 years.

by sεяεηιτλ 2022-09-11, 21:58

erm limits for legislators at all levels of government in today's world, where the issues and laws are highly complex and they are just learning their jobs in the first ten years, so I don't like this much at all.

I used to be in favor of term limits, but then i started thinking about the practicality of it. what you essentially would be doing is kicking out your most seasoned and most knowledgeable employees running our state/country whatever and replacing them with someone completely green or at the very least less experienced. That's a recipe for making yourself weak and ineffective.

The spirit of most people wanting term limits are right - we definitely need to get the people out that know how to game the system for things like getting rich as a politician, etc, but this way you are getting rid of too much of the good that comes with experience and making us weaker. Go about it another way. Have to add some kind of accountability, big time.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-09-12, 10:29

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
erm limits for legislators at all levels of government in today's world, where the issues and laws are highly complex and they are just learning their jobs in the first ten years, so I don't like this much at all.

I used to be in favor of term limits, but then i started thinking about the practicality of it. what you essentially would be doing is kicking out your most seasoned and most knowledgeable employees running our state/country whatever and replacing them with someone completely green or at the very least less experienced. That's a recipe for making yourself weak and ineffective.

The spirit of most people wanting term limits are right - we definitely need to get the people out that know how to game the system for things like getting rich as a politician, etc, but this way you are getting rid of too much of the good that comes with experience and making us weaker. Go about it another way. Have to add some kind of accountability, big time.

I like to say "we already have term limits. We call them 'elections'..".

by **Motown Spartan** 2022-09-13, 08:13

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham set to introduce a Federal 15 week ban on abortions, confirming once again that it's not about State's rights but rather about controlling women. Bold move just two months before midterms.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-09-13, 08:26

Motown Spartan wrote:GOP Senator Lindsey Graham set to introduce a Federal 15 week ban on abortions, confirming once again that it's not about State's rights but rather about controlling women. Bold move just two months before midterms.

Now that these, what were pro-forma, bills are being proposed they sure don't look like winners, with two thirds of the country in favor of the Right to Chose.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-09-13, 08:28

Motown Spartan wrote:GOP Senator Lindsey Graham set to introduce a Federal 15 week ban on abortions, confirming once again that it's not about State's rights but rather about controlling women. Bold move just two months before midterms.

I think the idea is to be able to say “look at these democrat baby killers that voted against my common sense no ‘late term’ abortion bill” in campaigns. Lindsey doesn’t realize that his position is massively unpopular though so we’ll see how that plays for him

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-09-13, 08:49

so 'pro-life' christian republicans want/need women to die in order to advance their misogynistic agenda?

I never noticed.

also, this is sign #3,298 that their terrified of the electorate in November.

by **Motown Spartan** 2022-09-13, 10:19

I think it's short sighted by Graham. I'd get the Senate Dems to pass it, change it in the House to 45 weeks, and then get it re-passed in the Senate.

Edit: It would be hilarious to kick it back to the Senate and watch the Senate GOP filibuster their own bill.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-09-13, 12:52

15 weeks?

so... precious lift no longer begins at conception? It doesn't begin until <checks notes>.. 15 weeks?

surely the "pro-life" religious right will be outraged by this declaration from their political heroes, right?

by **kingstonlake** 2022-09-28, 15:40

[tw]1575179399074299921?s=46&t=uq2NexO1ISdKVUIF76RvPA[/tw]

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-09-28, 16:04

kingstonlake wrote:[tw]1575179399074299921?s=46&t=uq2NexO1ISdKVUIF76RvPA[/tw]

so republicans are misogynists whose sole desire is to control women?

I never noticed.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-10-06, 11:05

https://apnews.com/article/loretta-lynn-songs-abortion-f88c192ff7f25636546ad3fad48544c6?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_10

https://apnews.com/52eb03a2b2074e0391283933c60f396a

by **Motown Spartan** 2022-10-06, 11:36

FYI…it’s on the ballot. I already voted for it.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-10-06, 12:00

I posted about Loretta's views on birth control and abortion here because I thought it was too political for the Celebrities Death thread and in this thread because I thought it didn't really warrant a thread of its own.

Yes, the issue made it on the ballot and the last poll I saw said that 64% of likely voters support it.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-10-24, 07:50

Here is what the RWNJ Christians are saying -

“We have to act. We can’t spiritualize this,” the Rev. Alex Kratz told congregants while celebrating Mass.

“We’ve got to pray like crazy. But we also have to be involved in the politics of our locality and our state.”

“This is a line in the sand,” he added. “If we get this wrong, we’ve gotten everything wrong.”

Well at least he is being honest, they have gotten everything wrong.

by **GRR Spartan** 2022-11-01, 13:19

There’s the common sense Dr Oz view that a woman’s reproductive decisions should be between the woman, her healthcare providers and local elected officials.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-11-01, 13:37

GRR Spartan wrote:There’s the common sense Dr Oz view that a woman’s reproductive decisions should be between the woman, her healthcare providers and local elected officials.

nothing says "limited government" or "get government out of my life" like government controlling the body of a female.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-11-01, 16:17

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
GRR Spartan wrote:There’s the common sense Dr Oz view that a woman’s reproductive decisions should be between the woman, her healthcare providers and local elected officials.
nothing says "limited government" or "get government out of my life" like government controlling the body of a female.

The Catholic Church, which has no business being involved, has pulled out all the stops on this with lie after lie after lie.

Why can't the clergy go back to having sex with altar boys, since they are good at it? /s

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-11-01, 16:25

Trapper Gus wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote: nothing says "limited government" or "get government out of my life" like government controlling the body of a female.

Why can't the clergy go back to having sex with altar boys, since they are good at it?

I think it might be best to not say things like “man I wish theyd just rape them kids instead”

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-11-01, 17:07

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Why can't the clergy go back to having sex with altar boys, since they are good at it?

I think it might be best to not say things like “man I wish theyd just rape them kids instead”

I thought you guys understood sarcasm without the "/s", however I have added it.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-11-01, 17:11

Trapper Gus wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I think it might be best to not say things like “man I wish theyd just rape them kids instead”

I thought you guys understood sarcasm without the "/s", however I have added it.

You know traps, I didn’t really think that you want them to rape kids.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-11-01, 17:24

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

I thought you guys understood sarcasm without the "/s", however I have added it.

You know traps, I didn’t really think that you want them to rape kids.

I did question if you were also being sarcastic, however I have tried to make my inability to detect sarcasm well known and there was no "/s"

by sεяεηιτλ 2022-11-02, 21:15

Are churches allowed to have those dumb "too confusing too extreme" signs displayed on their property? Thought they were supposed to stay out of politics. Or are proposals like that not considered politics? I've seen a surprising amount of them in my sub. I was very very tempted to not let my kids trick or treat at those homes.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-11-03, 07:37

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Are churches allowed to have those dumb "too confusing too extreme" signs displayed on their property? Thought they were supposed to stay out of politics. Or are proposals like that not considered politics? I've seen a surprising amount of them in my sub. I was very very tempted to not let my kids trick or treat at those homes.

Evangelicals are feeling embolden and don't fear the loss of their tax-exempt status.

What I don't get is why any business owner would allow political signs on their property? Do they have too much business and want to drive potential customers away?

by sεяεηιτλ 2022-11-03, 20:55

Trapper Gus wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:Are churches allowed to have those dumb "too confusing too extreme" signs displayed on their property? Thought they were supposed to stay out of politics. Or are proposals like that not considered politics? I've seen a surprising amount of them in my sub. I was very very tempted to not let my kids trick or treat at those homes.

Evangelicals are feeling embolden and don't fear the loss of their tax-exempt status.

What I don't get is why any business owner would allow political signs on their property? Do they have too much business and want to drive potential customers away?

So signs on the proposals are a nono then?

And agree on the business signs. It's ludicrous. Only way that helps is if your business specifically tailored to those people. Like a church supply store GA Fuchs, which hilariously can be pronounced like gay fucks.

https://fuchschurchsupply.com/

by **tGreenWay** 2022-11-03, 21:14

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Are churches allowed to have those dumb "too confusing too extreme" signs displayed on their property? Thought they were supposed to stay out of politics. Or are proposals like that not considered politics? I've seen a surprising amount of them in my sub. I was very very tempted to not let my kids trick or treat at those homes.

I learned from the story linked below that churches are allowed leeway as it relates to Michigan ballot proposals.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2022/10/03/edsel-ford-calls-out-st-pauls-in-gp-on-anti-abortion-signage/69533990007/

by **DWags** 2022-11-03, 21:30

71% approval rating in Michigan.

by sεяεηιτλ 2022-11-03, 23:05

tGreenWay wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:Are churches allowed to have those dumb "too confusing too extreme" signs displayed on their property? Thought they were supposed to stay out of politics. Or are proposals like that not considered politics? I've seen a surprising amount of them in my sub. I was very very tempted to not let my kids trick or treat at those homes.

I learned from the story linked below that churches are allowed leeway as it relates to Michigan ballot proposals.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2022/10/03/edsel-ford-calls-out-st-pauls-in-gp-on-anti-abortion-signage/69533990007/

Thanks, that sucks though. Thanks to the constant pushing of wedge issues by republicans, something like this has become inherently political and it's pretty crappy they are not only allowed to display an obvious political position, but to do so in a manner that far exceeds normal residential signage standards. Absurd exceptions are given to churches in all areas and yet they are allowed to push political agendas from the pulpit. Maybe they should be a target of the next ballot proposal? Seems to be the only way we can get stuff like this done these days in MI thanks to the insanely one sided make up of the state government. Seems like proposal drives in general should be easier than they used to be with the many forms of communication at our disposal to organize such efforts.

by **GRR Spartan** 2022-11-04, 07:06

Ironic that Roman Catholic and Evangelical churches would have: TOO EXTREME TOO CONFUSING signage n their property since both descriptions apply to each.

by **Jake from State Farm** 2022-11-04, 07:46

I received a mailing the other day on Proposal 3. It basically made it sound like school nurses would be able to castrate or sterilize your children. Nothing like good old scare tactics to get people out to vote.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-11-04, 08:45

Even with all the lies pushed out there by the Catholic Church the yes side is still polling at 54%, and I'm guessing there are a bunch of Catholics who are lying to pollsters and saying "no" but voting yes.

by sεяεηιτλ 2022-11-04, 13:43

Jake from State Farm wrote:I received a mailing the other day on Proposal 3. It basically made it sound like school nurses would be able to castrate or sterilize your children. Nothing like good old scare tactics to get people out to vote.

That's their entire campaign essentially. The entire argument is that the law basically cancels out a bunch of laws and we don't yet know the effects. And this would happen no matter how it was written. All that will happen is a cascade of court cases that get decided and will flesh out these details they think are extreme and confusing. Any law or constitution change will do this same thing.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-11-04, 13:53

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Jake from State Farm wrote:I received a mailing the other day on Proposal 3. It basically made it sound like school nurses would be able to castrate or sterilize your children. Nothing like good old scare tactics to get people out to vote.

That's their entire campaign essentially. The entire argument is that the law basically cancels out a bunch of laws and we don't yet know the effects. And this would happen no matter how it was written. All that will happen is a cascade of court cases that get decided and will flesh out these details they think are extreme and confusing. Any law or constitution change will do this same thing.

Well since this basically is a copy of what Roe v Wade did their fears are way overblown.

by **Motown Spartan** 2022-11-04, 14:18

I had a client tell me today that Proposal 3 included allowing 12 year olds to get gender reassignment treatment without parental consent. So, I pulled up the official language of Prop3 from the Google machine and asked her to read it to me word for word. She still didn't believe me because her church told her.

by **Cameron** 2022-11-04, 14:23

Religious people are very gullible. Easy marks.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-11-04, 15:35

Motown Spartan wrote:I had a client tell me today that Proposal 3 included allowing 12 year olds to get gender reassignment treatment without parental consent. So, I pulled up the official language of Prop3 from the Google machine and asked her to read it to me word for word. She still didn't believe me because her church told her.

Thus the problem with mixing government and God

by Sponsored content