• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

WSU MUP Student said:
If you pull up the data by state but then break it out by metro area v non-metro area (or counties in metro areas v those in non-metro areas), you can see some real stark differences within each state.
Click to expand...
There is non-metro areas of Cook County and NY County?

Maister said:
I'd say the Mitch McConnel-induced Constitutional crisis where the Senate failed to discharge their duty to vote yes or no on Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court significantly increased the partisan nature and function of the Court.
Click to expand...

You are very correct that McConnel was wrong to do what he did. But I would venture to say that the court members were biased before that.
 
michaelskis said:
My question to you is in light of RGB's death during the Trump presidency, do you think more Justices will retire while their party is in office vs serve until death?
Click to expand...
My dream is to term limit the court...
  • 16 members of the court, each position is a 16 year term.
  • A President can appoint one per year; I'd say make it each April.
  • Strict process and allowed lines of questioning for Senate confirmation, with simple majority approval within 30 days (think like findings of fact for variances). Failure to act by the Senate constitutes approval.
  • If a justice dies or resigns before their term is over, the seat remains vacant until it is due for appointment. If a justice is impeached, the seat remains vacant until it is due for appointment.
In this way, no President is able to appoint more than 50% of the justices (unless the President initially fills an unexpired term, such as a VP ascension). That alone helps to de-politicize, and the "oh so many justices might retire" as a Presidential campaign/platform topic goes away. Likewise, the nonsense like what happened with Garland goes away because there's no incentive. It also reduces the "how old are they/how long will they serve" evaluation technique (a.k.a. Presidential legacymaking as a selection basis).

I personally like the idea that the court membership could fluctuate a little. I think a larger court is helpful for diversity of legal perspectives. For example, it reduces the instinct to automatically pull from circuit courts and think tanks, and maybe encourages appointment of trial lawyers (and maybe even former elected office holders that are qualified, which is a perspective I think would benefit the court).

I'm also interested in some type of framework in which the Supreme Court could expel one of its own members, which would provide a helpful check.
 
michaelskis said:
There is non-metro areas of Cook County and NY County?
Click to expand...

No, though some populous counties do have portions that show up as non-urbanized in the Census ACS data so you can get the information broken out by urban v non-urban.

I was just making a more general statement that by comparing populous counties within a particular state you can see that, in general, the more highly educated residents are clustered in the population centers and metro areas, even when you factor for things such as age and overall size of population. I like that link that @kjel posted as they have an "Rural-Urban Continuum Code" so you can also sort the counties that way. Though there are always exceptions like Leelanau County in Michigan which has 47% of their residents completing college but only about 20,000 residents. Areas that are popular vacation destinations or with a disproportionate number of retirees are common exceptions. It will be interesting to see how the distribution of those with college degrees changes over the next ten years or so as remote work becomes more of an option, especially among those in tech and financial services...

I haven't looked at crime stats in a long time (last I looked deeply into it was probably about a decade+ ago) but there used to be a lot of differences between how/when crimes were reported from one local jurisdiction to another, and those differences became more pronounced when you tried to compare jurisdictions between different states. There was also a lot of data that showed that a lot property crime went unreported in the crime stats or were more often pleaded down to something lesser or thrown out in court in more exurban and rural areas than in suburban communities and core cities and that had an effect on skewing the data. Now, why those offenses were going unreported in the crime stats or the suspects were more likely to get more favorable treatment in the system is an entirely different story...
 
WSU MUP Student said:
No, though some populous counties do have portions that show up as non-urbanized in the Census ACS data so you can get the information broken out by urban v non-urban.

I was just making a more general statement that by comparing populous counties within a particular state you can see that, in general, the more highly educated residents are clustered in the population centers and metro areas, even when you factor for things such as age and overall size of population. I like that link that @kjel posted as they have an "Rural-Urban Continuum Code" so you can also sort the counties that way. Though there are always exceptions like Leelanau County in Michigan which has 47% of their residents completing college but only about 20,000 residents. Areas that are popular vacation destinations or with a disproportionate number of retirees are common exceptions. It will be interesting to see how the distribution of those with college degrees changes over the next ten years or so as remote work becomes more of an option, especially among those in tech and financial services...

I haven't looked at crime stats in a long time (last I looked deeply into it was probably about a decade+ ago) but there used to be a lot of differences between how/when crimes were reported from one local jurisdiction to another, and those differences became more pronounced when you tried to compare jurisdictions between different states. There was also a lot of data that showed that a lot property crime went unreported in the crime stats or were more often pleaded down to something lesser or thrown out in court in more exurban and rural areas than in suburban communities and core cities and that had an effect on skewing the data. Now, why those offenses were going unreported in the crime stats or the suspects were more likely to get more favorable treatment in the system is an entirely different story...
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in the first post regarding this, I don't think that a mayors political affiliation has much, if anything, to do with it. But I do wonder about why it is the way it is.
 
bureaucrat#3 said:
Having lived in the South most of my life, I think people here don't realize how much crime, especially murders take place. We average under 10 homicides every year. That's no where near as many of as a big city. But on a per capita basis we're almost always at 20-25 per 100,000. About a month ago, WSJ or some other national publication had an article about the "Rural Crime Wave".

I actually heard two local police officers, not from my town, say we only get random crime and domestic violence. In their opinion, you really can't stop that....

Looking at national statistics, we are always bottom of the barrel. The running joke in Alabama is "Thank God for Mississippi" or we'd be dead last in every positive ranking.
Click to expand...

My grandpa is from small town Mississippi. I knew this stuff anecdotaly already. Spent some time there. Canada is more like Iowa than Mississippi is.
 
I would love to find more ways to limit politicians time in power, and ways to de-party our system. Anything that we can do to reduce the impact of the R v. D dynamic is a good thing in my mind. The SC is now partisan. That isn't a good check on the legislative and executive branch, which are CRAZY partisan right now.

Term limits. Age limits. Non-political agencies with protection from the executive branch. Less political appointees. More structure and protection of non-political positions within the government.

All of that allows for more transparency, more accountability, and more reason to be center of the road.
 
I'm not really in favor of term limits for elected positions but wouldn't be opposed to some sort of maximum age limit.

For judges though, I think we totally need to get rid of lifetime appointments. There needs to be some sort of term limit AND age limit in those cases.
 
So Arizona is going back to 1800's territorial law on abortion. I guess we had one on the books way back then and the AG is ignoring all laws past that. Don't matter to me. I gotta go stake my claim and mine me some gold. Ye Haw!
 
DVD said:
So Arizona is going back to 1800's territorial law on abortion. I guess we had one on the books way back then and the AG is ignoring all laws past that. Don't matter to me. I gotta go stake my claim and mine me some gold. Ye Haw!
Click to expand...

DVD going out in retirement
1656602180185.png
 
michaelskis said:
As I mentioned in the first post regarding this, I don't think that a mayors political affiliation has much, if anything, to do with it. But I do wonder about why it is the way it is.
Click to expand...
I mentioned a few posts ago that the "social contract" is dead as a reason for crime and social decay. It's an old theory explored by Socrates, Locke, Hobbes, Kant and Rosseau and also has its modern proponents in Rawls, Gauthier, and Pettit among others. At it's essence social contract theory is people living together in society with an "agreement" that establishes moral and political rules of behavior.

For the purposes of this post I will offer it up as "if you do certain good things like work, get an education, obey the law, and be a decent person then you will have a decent standard of living" (decent wages, stable employment, next generation will do better than the last, ability to afford a decent place to live, obtain a college education, enjoy relative safety, etc.) For many people in this country, myself included, this holds true. That doesn't mean people don't experience challenges and setbacks as nothing rarely happens in an upward bound straight line trajectory, but generally bearings are found and things continue along in a positive trend. But for a lot of people this doesn't hold true.

A child's zip code and family economic status are the two main predictors of socio-economic outcomes as an adult https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/make-your-own-mobility-animation.html (Income Mobility Charts for Girls, Asian-Americans and Other Groups. Or Make Your Own. (Published 2018)). There are a wide variety of factors at play here, historically systematic racism has been the underlying reason and to a large degree it still is. However, rural America is experiences many of the same issues that are classically thought of as inner city or urban issues accelerated by changes in the global economy.
 
Pointless thing I read but I love. The Satanic Temple is filing lawsuits because abortion is a religious right to them. Also a Jewish Temple is suing because abortions must be performed if required according to their faith. Imagine that, you have to consider religious rights beyond Super Christian.
 
So my wife just read some statement for one of the minor GOP candidates for governor. They want a pro America class for all schools. I have so many questions about this curriculum.

1. Does this include the Americans that live to the south like Brazil? or are we going to teach kids that we are the United States and America refers to a couple continents.
2. Do we let kids know that anybody near the Rockies drinks Coors and the rest drink Bud so we can fit in?
3. Kids, that appropriate tire size for your truck is a minimum 35"

She also wants to make sure we don't teach sex ed and CRT. Have any of these candidates stopped to ask kids if they're taught CRT? I asked mine, they looked at me funny and said no. Maybe it's just taught in secret code so they don't know they're learning CRT.
 
Ok, now I am pissed. Apparently posting something in support of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July is offensive to some people.

To those people, screw you. 246 years ago 55 men took an unimaginable risk for the ultimate freedoms that we all have today. Without their risk, this would be a very different place today.

www.archives.gov

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Stone Engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.
www.archives.gov www.archives.gov

No, it was not perfect, but it was a profound step in the right direction.


Happy 4th of July.
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
Ok, now I am pissed. Apparently posting something in support of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July is offensive to some people.
Click to expand...
Huh? Who's offended by expressing support for the Declaration of Independence? Never heard such a thing.
 
michaelskis said:
Ok, now I am pissed. Apparently posting something in support of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July is offensive to some people.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am seeing that, too. I take it there are some real angry people out there. My guesstimation is that these are emotional reactions, given what's been going on with the Supreme Court. Granted, I could be wrong, but to help me cope with the dissonance, I box up those social media postings and rationalize what I am reading as that there is so much emotion out there right now.
 
michaelskis said:
For murders and shootings, things are better than a year ago. I would be interested in knowing the details of the programs to help keep illegal guns off the street. There needs to be more of that.

chicago.suntimes.com

Chicago sees a drop in homicides and shootings, but carjackings and other crimes are up from year ago

The drop in shootings has been greatest in 15 of the city’s most violent community areas. Those neighborhoods still accounted for 64% of the city’s homicides and 60% of the people shot.
chicago.suntimes.com chicago.suntimes.com
Click to expand...
Program to keep illiegal guns off the streets? Like building a wall on the border with Indiana?

Works for me.

Build The Wall!
 
Yeah! We should all wall in our states. I can keep those damn California people out that keep jacking up home values and coming here to buy our stuff because it's cheaper than back home.
 
Why don't the gun absolutists just admit it; The price of their "freedom" is that we will have mass shootings, and they are OK with it. Its a price they are willing to pay. Just admit it.
 
Sounds like the kid in Highland Park and his family had quite a history with law enforcement.

Once again, this could have been prevented with good red-flag laws. But I am sure some people will continue to blame the gun.
 
michaelskis said:
Sounds like the kid in Highland Park and his family had quite a history with law enforcement.

Once again, this could have been prevented with good red-flag laws. But I am sure some people will continue to blame the gun.
Click to expand...
Nope. Guns don't kill people, the bullets do.
 
michaelskis said:
Oh wow… I am terrified of the several large boxes in my closet. I really hope they don’t get me while I sleep!

Saying bullets kill people is almost as stupid as saying that it’s the gun’s fault!
Click to expand...
I made no mention of fault. Just stated a fact. The bullets do indeed kill people.

Was one of these: </sarcasm> needed?
 
estromberg said:
I made no mention of fault. Just stated a fact. The bullets do indeed kill people.

Was one of these: </sarcasm> needed?
Click to expand...

Yes!

On a side note, I took another pistol class a few weeks ago and had lunch with the instructor who also a cop for a larger city. He was telling me about how different states have different rules, but so few of them have anything resembling even a hint of a red flag law. However, he understands the reason for the opposition because it could have political and personal bias against some good people, but he also thinks that if done right it would be super effective.

But done right and the federal government are not two things that seem go well together anymore.
 
michaelskis said:
Once again, this could have been prevented with good red-flag laws. But I am sure some people will continue to blame the gun.
Click to expand...
I blame the access to guns, but it doesn't matter who blames anything, it matters that he got the gun and did what he did.

There are probably lots of solutions that could have helped prevent it. But we get 65-35 on watered down language in the Senate, and 234-193 in the House. Which means a total of 29 elected republicans voted for gun regulations that were extremely basic and weak. That is all. So only one party truly wants to at least reduce gun violence. How do you not vote for red flag laws? Because you are bought and sold by the gun lobby, or have a gun fetish where you can't get over some interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that clearly we can now all change, because precedent no longer matters in the Supreme Court.

Our countries priorities are broken. Elections matter and we are paying the price for the partisan desire to have more and more crazy people elected.
 
Red flag laws only work if people press the issue. I think they should definitely be part of the way we deal with guns, but it generally needs to be harder to own and buy a gun. Background checks, training, insurance... I don't know.

From the Highland Park story.

"Illinois State Police defended how the suspect was able to get a FOID card in 2020, just four months after Highland Park Police were called to his home after he threatened to kill his family with his collection of knives and swords."

"Illinois State Police said family didn't tell law enforcement about any mental health concerns, no Firearms Restraining Order was filed, and no one asked for an order of protection."

"Not only did the family not raise those concerns, his father sponsored his application — a requirement for applicants under the age of 21."
 
Hink said:
Elections matter and we are paying the price for the partisan desire to have more and more crazy people elected.
Click to expand...
"Crazy?" I think a better term would be evil. Using the word crazy is like giving them a pass, like they are mentally ill and it's somehow not their fault.

No they are just evil and it is their fault. 100% culpability. Calculated, premeditated, malicious, poisonous, relishing in the mayhem, and wanting to inflict the maximum amount of carnage at all levels. They will explode into violence at the slightest provocation because they are predisposed to violence and chaos. It is in their blood. They intent do to harm because that is what evil little monsters get off on. They cannot be, nor will they ever be, able to be reasoned with on any level. They are just unspeakably and irredeemable corrupt with a soul as black as coal and with total murderous intent.

And their are millions of them.
 
A very good article:
www.espn.com

Baseball, barbecue and losing freedom this Fourth of July

Life in post-hypocrisy America creates a newfound understanding of what "home" really means.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Last month, Major League Baseball and its partners again released Independence Day-themed baseball hats that each of the 30 teams will wear. This year's version features a flush of stars across the front against a blue and white backdrop, offset with a shaggy shock of red. The Toronto Blue Jays, located in a country that does not celebrate American independence, were also issued the caps -- even though the Canadian flag does not contain stars nor the color blue. Public outrage prompted a redesign of the Toronto caps. Next is the USA-themed socks, the marketing, the freedom-inspired spikes, gloves, wristbands, the inevitable paeans to the armed forces.

In the 1950s, the Yankees did not want fans wearing Yankees caps. George Weiss, the Yankees' general manager at the time, thought a million New York kids wearing the team cap cheapened the brand. Yankees hats were a piece of a professional uniform. They were for players, not fans.

Two decades of paid patriotism has made it ever harder to center the Fourth on reconnecting with your favorite aunts and uncles. No backyard barbecue and badminton game could compete with 20 years of military tributes and unquestioned nationalism.
 
michaelskis said:
Yes!

On a side note, I took another pistol class a few weeks ago and had lunch with the instructor who also a cop for a larger city. He was telling me about how different states have different rules, but so few of them have anything resembling even a hint of a red flag law. However, he understands the reason for the opposition because it could have political and personal bias against some good people, but he also thinks that if done right it would be super effective.

But done right and the federal government are not two things that seem go well together anymore.
Click to expand...
NJ has one called the Extreme Risk Protective Orders Act (ERPO). In the first two years after it was enacted about 700 ERPOs petitions were filed by law enforcement/prosecutors, family member, or household member. Of these 664 were temporary and 325 of those were made permanent. Law enforcement offers are a mandated reporter under ERPO whenever they have probable cause to believe that a person poses an immediate and present danger of causing bodily injury to self or others by having custody or control of, owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. When a temporary ERPO is issued, the owner has to surrender the firearms and receives a judicial hearing within 10 days to petition why they are not a danger and have their firearms returned.

It works.
 
We're trying to get our anti dark money thing on the ballot for like the third time. Every time someone finds a court that will knock it off the ballot. You would think close to 500,000 signatures would convince our legislature that we want that to happen.
 
There has been several people in here who have commented about repealing the 2nd Amendment. Let me ask you a serious question. Do you think that it would actually happen? Given the process to amend the constitution and the difficulties of the Federal Government to take simple action pertaining to common sense gun regulations, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

However, I do think that there are other constitutional amendments that are possible. A recent book analysis on CNN called 5 Constitutional Amendments for Right Now provides an outline of the process and recommendations on some constitutional amendments that the author feels would be appropriate right now.

www.cnn.com

5 constitutional amendments for right now | CNN Politics

Readers of this newsletter are frequently reminded of the shortcomings of the US form of government:
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

What are your thoughts? What amendments to the constitution would you like to see and more importantly, of those that you would like to see, how many do you think would actually have a chance of being approved and ratified?
 
michaelskis said:
There has been several people in here who have commented about repealing the 2nd Amendment. Let me ask you a serious question. Do you think that it would actually happen? Given the process to amend the constitution and the difficulties of the Federal Government to take simple action pertaining to common sense gun regulations, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

However, I do think that there are other constitutional amendments that are possible. A recent book analysis on CNN called 5 Constitutional Amendments for Right Now provides an outline of the process and recommendations on some constitutional amendments that the author feels would be appropriate right now.

www.cnn.com

5 constitutional amendments for right now | CNN Politics

Readers of this newsletter are frequently reminded of the shortcomings of the US form of government:
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

What are your thoughts? What amendments to the constitution would you like to see and more importantly, of those that you would like to see, how many do you think would actually have a chance of being approved and ratified?
Click to expand...
No that is not realistic. Also most people are not anti-2A, they're anti unfettered access.

I think the Equal Rights Amendment is needed and was ratified by 35 out of the 38 states required at the time it was floated in 1972. There's a 7 year time limit on ratification. The proposed text:

"Article--
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
 
kjel said:
No that is not realistic. Also most people are not anti-2A, they're anti unfettered access.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I think the rub is where abuse of 2A infringes on rights enumerated in other amendments.

The article is interesting as far as how amendments tend to occur in clusters. We all know the Electoral College is problematic, but the nature of the problem likely makes it near impossible to ratify. This is kind of the inherent problem with our Constitution--it was made exceptionally difficult to amend... to the point no country has copied it. It largely ignored the potential for tyranny of the minority in its zeal to address majority tyranny (which, by the way, was driven by low-pop agriculture states to virtually guarantee slavery would continue as a 'states rights' issue).

I suspect support for the SCOTUS amendment may gain ground, but I think it will need coupling to term limits in the legislative branch. That combo platter might lead to popular bipartisan support & approval.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
The article is interesting as far as how amendments tend to occur in clusters. We all know the Electoral College is problematic, but the nature of the problem likely makes it near impossible to ratify. This is kind of the inherent problem with our Constitution--it was made exceptionally difficult to amend... to the point no country has copied it. It largely ignored the potential for tyranny of the minority in its zeal to address majority tyranny (which, by the way, was driven by low-pop agriculture states to virtually guarantee slavery would continue as a 'states rights' issue).
Click to expand...
I would love to see this revised to a blanket, each congressional district is one vote, and popular vote for each state gets the two senate votes. However the only way for it to work is for elected officials to really get serious about eliminating gerrymandering. Perhaps that too becomes a revision to the congressional district requiring districts to conform to the greater of County, Municipal, or Neighborhood boundaries,
 
Back
Top