southsider2k5 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) Your boards are way better than ours Its a stepping stone to bigger things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 We beg for people to fill some of our boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Senate Republicans probably are filibustering the nominations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:11 PM) Senate Republicans probably are filibustering the nominations In Indiana is more likely that the Democrats ran away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Tangentially related, the ACLU head has offered up $1k for anyone who can bring forth documented, verifiable accounts of voter impersonation. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/w...onation-reward/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 10:17 AM) Tangentially related, the ACLU head has offered up $1k for anyone who can bring forth documented, verifiable accounts of voter impersonation. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/w...onation-reward/ Woo hoo! It's the Minnesota chapter, so it's a way for me to money this fall! Side note: This reminds me of the targeted "Minnesota for Marriage" ads I was getting. At least one of those was downright terrible and I was kind of upset it was on the site; what's Soxtalk's ad policy? And I was actually surprised, it's usually hard for vitriolic ads to get any response from me other than laughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 12:09 PM) Woo hoo! It's the Minnesota chapter, so it's a way for me to money this fall! Side note: This reminds me of the targeted "Minnesota for Marriage" ads I was getting. At least one of those was downright terrible and I was kind of upset it was on the site; what's Soxtalk's ad policy? And I was actually surprised, it's usually hard for vitriolic ads to get any response from me other than laughter. We don't censor or really run the ads at all, they're entirely supplied by the Google Ads program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 San Francisco Giants Season Tickets! Buy Now! There's got to be some sort of control over the ad content, but to be honest I don't pay any attention to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) San Francisco Giants Season Tickets! Buy Now! There's got to be some sort of control over the ad content, but to be honest I don't pay any attention to them. It's Google. It's almost certainly responding to various cookies that have been picked up by your browser at places you've visited previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) It's Google. It's almost certainly responding to various cookies that have been picked up by your browser at places you've visited previously. Yeah, that's what I get for searching stuff on Gay Marriage for equal protection debates, and living in Minnesota. Like Strange said, I don't normally notice them either; I only did with this one because it was pretty outlandish (I wish I could remember what it said now that I've mentioned it twice, I just remember my feeling on it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, so Daniels can pick a permanent replacement instead of it going to the Democratic candidate. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/1...ed-voter-fraud/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2012 -> 07:05 AM) the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, so Daniels can pick a permanent replacement instead of it going to the Democratic candidate. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/1...ed-voter-fraud/ I always prefer the party keeps the office. IMHO it is about as close to the voter's wishes as can be for that office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 16, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) I always prefer the party keeps the office. IMHO it is about as close to the voter's wishes as can be for that office. Only if the voters are electing a party and not a person. But I don't have a problem with this ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Which is why I try to keep the person in office if possible. When that can't occur, for whatever reason, then the next important factor should be party affiliation. Especially when if can change majority rules, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 17, 2012 Author Share Posted March 17, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2012 -> 12:24 PM) Only if the voters are electing a party and not a person. But I don't have a problem with this ruling. I actually do, if the candidate didn't qualify to be on the ballot, which it was ruled that he didn't - the party he ran with shouldn't benefit from the fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 17, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) I actually do, if the candidate didn't qualify to be on the ballot, which it was ruled that he didn't - the party he ran with shouldn't benefit from the fraud. The indiana court overturned that part of the ruling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 17, 2012 Author Share Posted March 17, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 17, 2012 -> 12:23 PM) The indiana court overturned that part of the ruling Which frankly strikes me as a political solution to a legal problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 17, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) I actually do, if the candidate didn't qualify to be on the ballot, which it was ruled that he didn't - the party he ran with shouldn't benefit from the fraud. I understand your point and it is a strong one, but that would only be the case when the person selecting the replacement was from the other party. I believe the replacement should be as close to the voter's wishes as possible. Allowing political parties to use this as punishment and reward should be secondary. If the voters wish to later punish that party that is there choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 17, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) I actually do, if the candidate didn't qualify to be on the ballot, which it was ruled that he didn't - the party he ran with shouldn't benefit from the fraud. Pretty much any of the normal ways of replacing an office holder would have resulted in GOP nominee seeing as they control the Governor, the House, and the Senate in Indiana. If you start saying that another political party should benefit, then you are getting into political solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2012 -> 11:12 PM) Pretty much any of the normal ways of replacing an office holder would have resulted in GOP nominee seeing as they control the Governor, the House, and the Senate in Indiana. If you start saying that another political party should benefit, then you are getting into political solutions. I think if the election has to be essentially vacated because the candidate was never eligible to be on the ballot - in the first place - the party that wins with the ineligible candidate shouldn't just get to keep the seat due to party affiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 19, 2012 -> 09:01 AM) I think if the election has to be essentially vacated because the candidate was never eligible to be on the ballot - in the first place - the party that wins with the ineligible candidate shouldn't just get to keep the seat due to party affiliation. Without rewriting the rules to filling a vacated seat, you're only other option is a new election. If the Governor nominates someone, it will be a GOPer. If it is the House, it will be a GOPer. If it is the Senate, it will be a GOPer. If it is any combination of the above, the result will be the same, because the party controls the state. Honestly a better argument could be made that whoever was faced in the GOP primary should be the new SecState because they would too have beaten the Dem nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Do we elect individuals or parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2012 -> 09:34 AM) Do we elect individuals or parties? All traditional means of replacing a vacated office, would result in a GOP member in office in this situation. There really isn't a way around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2012 -> 10:04 AM) Without rewriting the rules to filling a vacated seat, you're only other option is a new election. To be honest, I feel that would be the most appropriate action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 19, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) To be honest, I feel that would be the most appropriate action. I can handle that as fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts