Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Right after our election system unfucks itself so that's a reasonable proposition :V

[smirk]

The North Carolina one was essentially in opposition to a bill in a county that said basically the opposite of HB2, allowing transgender people to use bathrooms that corresponded to their identity.

I always found it weird that male-female bathrooms are legally enforced in the first place

...y'know, now that you mention it I'm not sure that they are enforced here in the States. It would be on a state-by-state basis. The only bathroom laws I can think of off the top of my head are things like restaurants needing facilities for public use, etc. There are probably legal requirements for the installation of gender-segregated restrooms (urinals vs. more stalls, and the like), but I'm not sure there are legal requirements for their use. Or at least, none before now.

I could be wrong. Trying to do some digging, but I'm not the best at vague legal research. If someone knows otherwise I would appreciate the education.

[PTTG??]

Right after our election system unfucks itself so that's a reasonable proposition :V

To be fair, real conservatives DO have a strong candidate to vote for. She's just registered to the wrong party.

[Gentlefish]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[EnigmaticHat]

Ted Cruz jokingly implies he would murder Donald Trump if given the chance.

MSNBC anchor asks "why does the democratic party even have voting booths?" in regards to superdelegates.

Our healthy democracy at work.

[itisnotlogical]

RIP this great union.

[mainiac]

So, realization- this election? The 2016 presidential election? It'll be nothing compared to the 2020 election, since this one clearly shows extreme dissatisfaction with the way things are ran and still won't result in any change. Imagine how pissed off the electorate will be in 2020.

I tend to take this viewpoint: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/voters-are-angry-voters-are-fed-voters-are-blah-blah-blah

To be fair, real conservatives DO have a strong candidate to vote for. She's just registered to the wrong party.

I always found it weird that male-female bathrooms are legally enforced in the first place

Is it?  I thought that it never was something the law covered until they realized transgender people were the new wave of people to persecute.

[Orange Wizard]

Is it?  I thought that it never was something the law covered until they realized transgender people were the new wave of people to persecute.

I dunno, I just assumed it was because otherwise no-one would be whining about trans people not being able to use whatever bathroom they prefer.

Unless they're all just whining about nothing, which wouldn't surprise me.

[Frumple]

Yeah, s'far as I'm aware in most (maybe all, I'unno) states it hasn't been. Should be pretty obvious just by dint of how many smaller businesses and restaurants and whatnot only have a single restroom.

S'actually kinda' amusing that mandating separate male and female facilities is pretty anti-small business, ha. The little guy's important right up until you've got to stomp on a mostly non-existent boogieman in order to screw someone over, I guess~

[Leafsnail]

I tend to take this viewpoint: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/voters-are-angry-voters-are-fed-voters-are-blah-blah-blah

That article made sense when it was written and Donald Trump appeared to be another terrible joke candidate for the Republicans. Now he has basically won the primary, and if he is defeated it will be by another outsider to the Republican mainstream.  That suggests this is different to previous years.

[Reelya]

Yeah, s'far as I'm aware in most (maybe all, I'unno) states it hasn't been. Should be pretty obvious just by dint of how many smaller businesses and restaurants and whatnot only have a single restroom.

S'actually kinda' amusing that mandating separate male and female facilities is pretty anti-small business, ha. The little guy's important right up until you've got to stomp on a mostly non-existent boogieman in order to screw someone over, I guess~

It's also anti-disabled. Since in my experience, a business will have one unisex single-person disabled toilet along with the men's and women's. So they're going to have "his and hers" disabled toilets now or they break the law? Less places will bother then.

[Baffler]

The recount in Missouri is finally finished, it gave Trump 12 more delegates. That leaves the count at Trump 755, Cruz 545, Rubio 171, Kasich 143.

Also can someone explain wtf is going on with Colorado's Republican convention? I'm hearing a lot of noise about that but I'm having trouble finding what actually happened past all the people who're pissed off about whatever it was.

[Mephansteras]

Yeah, s'far as I'm aware in most (maybe all, I'unno) states it hasn't been. Should be pretty obvious just by dint of how many smaller businesses and restaurants and whatnot only have a single restroom.

S'actually kinda' amusing that mandating separate male and female facilities is pretty anti-small business, ha. The little guy's important right up until you've got to stomp on a mostly non-existent boogieman in order to screw someone over, I guess~

It's also anti-disabled. Since in my experience, a business will have one unisex single-person disabled toilet along with the men's and women's. So they're going to have "his and hers" disabled toilets now or they break the law? Less places will bother then.

Lockable single-person toilets will probably be exempt regardless, since those don't have the same concerns to them.

[Culise]

The recount in Missouri is finally finished, it gave Trump 12 more delegates. That leaves the count at Trump 755, Cruz 545, Rubio 171, Kasich 143.

Also can someone explain wtf is going on with Colorado's Republican convention? I'm hearing a lot of noise about that but I'm having trouble finding what actually happened past all the people who're pissed off about whatever it was.

I can't find too much, either, beyond that Cruz picked up all 34 delegates there and Trump folk are crying foul.  Colorado's delegates are chosen on a caucus system has some very confusing rules that were never really changed, in spite of a bit of a push last year to shift to a statewide primary system like most states.   You have to preregister 29 days in advance to vote, and I suspect a lot of people didn't bother.  You have to be affiliated with the party whose candidate you're supporting for at least 2 months, and given some of the chaos that came out on the Democrat side in places like New York, I suspect there were a lot of "Republicans" who discovered to their unpleasant surprise that they were formally registered independent or Democrat (since with a secret ballot, your registered party affiliation is not at all tied to who you've actually voted for in past elections, and since it almost never come up otherwise, it can easily be out of date, leaving aside the possibility of bureaucratic SNAFUs or actual foul play).  Finally, you don't actually vote directly for who you want the delegates to support; each congressional district has a "mini-convention" of sorts to choose a delegate who, as far as I can tell, votes their stated preference.

NOTANEDIT:
Ah, I just found this.  It appears that above and beyond the points I make above, the Republicans changed the rules this year to completely cancel the caucus votes and all preference polls in the state in order to bypass a rule at the national party level that requires them to abide by the result of any such vote and allocate their delegates accordingly.  The state convention then awarded 13 delegates and 7 congressional assemblies the remaining 21, all of which are likely dominated by party insiders, and thus naturally giving Cruz 34 delegates.  Technically not illegal (the primaries are not a part of the national election system, but rather a function of the individual parties - they could choose their presidential candidate by pulling ping pong balls out of a fishbowl, for all any hypothetical Electoral Commission could cares), but highly questionable given the preponderance of the Democratic and Republican parties and the contentious nature of this particular primary season.  Worse, it doesn't even pretend to be subtle.   The Drudge Report article referenced in that (here) has more information on the normal process.

[mainiac]

I tend to take this viewpoint: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/voters-are-angry-voters-are-fed-voters-are-blah-blah-blah

That article made sense when it was written and Donald Trump appeared to be another terrible joke candidate for the Republicans. Now he has basically won the primary, and if he is defeated it will be by another outsider to the Republican mainstream.  That suggests this is different to previous years.

It does suggest something different but a lot of things could explain that besides voters being especially angry.  I mean, compare to 2008, the economy had just tanked and there was a really unpopular war.  I would say that Donald Trump isn't so much a product of voter anger as an exceptionally weak set of mainstream candidates and a media that gave him the equivalent of billions in free advertising so no challenger could emerge.