Submitted by AMC4x4 t3_yrkyk2 in newhampshire
Reply to comment by anarchir in Free Staters might actually have *more* legislative control now in the state House thanks to the even split? -- Brown said. “So the narrow margin had the effect of actually creating a budget that was farther to the right.” Could get interesting. by AMC4x4
Yup. Weird how that worked out. I wonder what the overall voter intent was with handing more legislative power to the Democrats? If the Free Staters under the cover of Republicans push their agenda too hard and just obstruct any attempt at bipartisanship (standing ground against any perceived center-left pieces of legislation) I wonder if there will be further pushback in two years?
Youre getting no center left economic bills through (GOP caucus is unified there, plus we control Senate and Gov), but theres a good chance more police accountability, civil asset forfeiture reform/abolishment, drug legalization, civil liberty improvement bills will make their way through. Basically the Dems have no power to push stuff like gun control, taxes, or welfare spending. Thats DOA.
Um, since when was gun control, taxes, etc. EVER going to gain traction in the NH legislature? You're conflating the national Democratic organization with the local NH Democrats. The two are different in makeup.
Also LOL'd at "civil liberty improvement bills." :D
They tried those things when they had majority power in 2007-2010. Even recently they tried passing off some welfare scheme to end run an income tax by not calling it while "taking money out of your paycheck for it".
As for recent events: https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2022/06/03/after-uvalde-shooting-little-chance-of-new-gun-laws-in-new-hampshire/
Rep. Casey Conley, a Dover Democrat who had helped fight for Rogers’ background check bill this year, said that that withdrawal was strategic.
The reality was, after the election two falls ago, there was not going to be much appetite for gun safety legislation, unfortunately,” he said. “So I think lawmakers made the decision that: ‘Why go down this road for something that’s going to be have no chance?’”
"I would say that that may well be part of it,” Cote said of firearms legislation. “I’m not sure what individual members plan to do and what things they plan to emphasize.”
For the record, NH state democrats have voted against every gun rights expansion measure like CACR 8 last session, and when they had control of the house years back, they voted for more gun restrictions.
I hear this claim a lot, but when you look at the actual votes NH democrat's are indeed voting against gun rights.
No one mentioned expansion. We were talking about control.
I don't remember any bills from ten years ago... Care to share? Would love to be informed if any of them were draconian, because even ten years ago I think anything that wasn't pure common-sense, the Dems knew would be rejected so I'd be surprised if it was anything radical.
They were veto'd by Sununu. Yeah, they were not AWB's or magazine bans, iirc it was waiting periods or something. You can probably google it and find it but I don't care to do that lol. All gun control is just inching away rights, so none of it can ever be supported.
It's literally very clearly now unconstitutional under Bruen, so they fact that they are knowingly trying to pass unconstitutional laws to revoke your rights is troubling.
I've lived in NYC and the thought of everyone carrying is kinda horrifying. There's room for sensible gun laws that a clear majority of gun owners support. Polls suck, but nothing much has changed regarding sentiment for 'sensible' regulation.
Well, can't agree with that.
Nothing sensible about assuming ownership and control over others and disarming them against their will with the state's armed agents.
This is the issue you and your lot had Tuesday - you're unwilling to have reasonable discussions. I talk about 'sensible,' something supported by everyone but special interests, and you jump to "disarming."
Goodnight.
All the Republicans I talked to thought there was a red wave coming because the economy has been so shitty. They didn't realize the Democrats care more about abortion than the economy.
[deleted]
I dont think the Republicans having a plan matters so much to voters. Republicans and Democrats always end up being fairly similar in that way anyhow (Republicans also cause inflation through massive money printing). But most voters vote -against- issues, not for, and when the economy is bad people will vote against who they perceive as causing it.
>They didn't realize the Democrats care more about abortion than the economy.
That's a funny way with words.
I think it's more accurate to say that Ds cared more about rights being stripped away from an entire class of people that had the effect of moving the country back 50 years than <---->
R's recently had control and didnt end abortion. Thankfully since the freestaters believe in body autonomy and they have a voting bloc there's little chance of abortion being outlawed here.
Good point
You will lose different rights whether you vote R or D.
A fully R state government kept 24 week legal abortion, so that's not a rational fear really.
Yeah, but the fears of the nationwide ban I'm sure had a ripple effect on legislature votes. It's a rational fear. For 50 years, people thought it wasn't. Now they know it is, thanks to GOP overreach nationally.
I am not in favor of abortion bans, but abortion was definitely never a right in the constitution. The supreme court decision was right as a matter of honest interpretation, even though I disagree with the outcome.
The GOP never should have advocated for a national legislative ban, just like the Dems never should have said they would codify Roe which is clearly a 10th amendment violation.
The problem with abortion is that it's a divisive issue with no clear ethical solution because it involves weighing parental rights against termination of a potential human.
Under our system the correct approach is probably to amend the constitution. But our system is hardly workable as it is, so probably not super realistic.
But as far as the state legislature, that's irrelevant really.
>abortion was definitely never a right in the constitution
Neither were a lot of things. Right to a fair trial, right to vote, right to a jury of peers, right to marriage, right to privacy, etc. I don't think we want to go down this road, right?
Oh that’s definitely the road some of them want to go down.
Well I'm not stating my normative opinion when I say that. The constitution is what it is. Some of those are in the bill of rights explicitly. Others are not.
I think the 9th amendment should have been given teeth from the begining to preserve rights that were not powers expressly delegated to the government. It is the "left wing" jurists who have always voted in favor of expanding state power to legislate in areas arguably protected by individual rights.
The problem with just making rights up out of whole cloth is that they can be taken away using the same logic.
This is one area I disagree with Anti Federalists about. The 10th amendment should have been the defacto writ of personal rights because its not specific and when you get specific you then get shit well its not expressly mentioned so that right doesnt exist. Constitution should have been only about restricting the Government (and for the most part it is), not about codifying any specific right.
Should the Government....no.
To be honest, I think it's more than that. The economy for most is annoying and a little scary, but I think people understand the underlying challenges. If the job market had been more like 2008 going into the election it obviously would have been a wipeout.
I don't think the distractions about kitty litter and other cultural issues did the Republicans any favors. It indicated to many voters that these are unserious people, and NH's voting majority has always been more pragmatic than emotional, no matter if they're liberal or conservative individually. That's my hot take on it anyway, I could be wrong.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments