Brutus_buckeye

Have you read the language? Maybe we should question your comprehension skills? Or maybe we can just agree to disagree on a nuanced issue.

I understand where you are coming from, and the libertarian in me respects that decision, however, here is where I differ. while the law (to many degrees) does not recognize that an unborn child has rights, I feel it should. In the abortion case, just like child welfare cases, the unborn child does not have a voice and needs a surrogate to stand up and protect their right to existence as a human. Now, I agree that that heartbeat bill is a step too far (and I think it will continue to be enjoined in court). While it still makes me sad that people choose that route, I think there should be some allowance for it early on in the pregnancy, because that is what people want. SHould it be a viability standard? that is more reasonable. But what is viability today? 50 years ago is was around 22 weeks (first 2 trimesters), today, viability can be found sooner than that. So is 15 weeks reasonable? I think there can be a debate about that. What really saddens me about this is that as a society, it seems that what once was legal, but shameful is something that some people are celebrating. What that says about our morals is saddening. Even if it is legal, it should be something that should be morally discouraged and resources should be devoted to promote a culture of life. 20 years ago, this was something that was being done. 20 years ago you could have a small faction of the Democratic party that was pro-life. Today, that is unacceptable. That is sad too. this is such a nuanced issue that is being waged in a black and white way. Both sides on this issue should be absolutely ashamed of their behavior on the matter. At the end of the day, I still am voting No because I think the amendment goes way too far, and it can be reconfigured in the future into something more nuanced and something that truly respects the needs of all Ohioans in a way that promotes life but still allows people to make a difficult choice if those cases arise.

we can agree to disagree on that part. The amendment has too many loopholes in it that it will not really provide any restrictions and allow abortion without any restrictions until birth, as well as bring back the partial birth procedures that were banned years ago. The amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. There are much more reasonable positions that could promote life yet still allow reasonable protections for the life of the mother in the event of an issue.

I think the current ban is much too restrictive, but this amendment opens the floodgates waay to far the other way. I think there can be a reasonable compromise had through the referendum end vs the amendment way. My wife has had multiple miscarriages too so I understand the pain of that. She even had to have a procedure to have the dead child removed. It was tragic. I think that the Pro-yes people are very misleading in this area though. Both sides need to find middle ground. This amendment is far from it though.

voting no. This is a bad amendment.

The niners pulled a Cleveland today and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. This was a game that just feels like the Browns were going to find a way to lose in heartbreaking fashion. It was nice to see them hang with SF and give them their first L

We recently worked on an endowment project at my kids school. This is essentially a similar model. The reason why they use a 5.5% payout every year is based on traditional averages, but that does not mean it will always be 5.5%. However, traditionally, the such documents do not allow for more than a 5.5% distribution (unless special circimstances apply) to ensure the principal keeps growing. Traditionally, you get an average of 8% return based on historical averages. So in many years the principal will grow and you only distribute 5.5%. Some years, the market will be less than 8% and in some years it will even be negative. When determining distributions of this type, at least in the educational endowment side, they use a 3 year average. Therefore, if over a 3 year period the returns are 25%, 5% & -5%; the average return is 8.3% and in year 4, they could still distribute 5.5% (because the rest of any gain stays gets compounded). Now in year 4 the return is 15% so that takes the 3 year moving average to 5%, which means year 5, the most you would distribute is 5% The 3 year averaging is designed to smooth out the volatility and help ensure that the distributions remain stable over the years.

That is interesting. The state Dems (while not in support of the current districts) do not want to bring this to court because the Ohio SC will rule against them this year. This is why Russo and many of the state Dems on committee voted yes. Bringing this to Court and taking a loss would create a bad precedent when it may be best strategically to hold your fire for a time when the odds of success are better.

It would be interesting to find out who is behind the suit. I can't see the Ohio Democratic Party being happy about this. I wonder if it was a smaller citizen group that filed this on their own?

It is voting at least once over a period that includes 2 general elections. It does not matter that you skip a primary. I may not personally agree with the threshhold set, however, I am accepting of it as long as it follows a standarized process So, here is the thing. this process is not something that has been proposed or going on for 3-4 months. This is pretty much been blessed by the Courts. This has not been enjoined by the courts or courts have not taken a position that the process is illegal. So from a Federal Court perspective, this process has passed Constitutional muster. Its ok jonboy. Don't be so hard on yourself. You do not need to pass the bar to have a valid opinion on a matter, but I would suggest you maybe understanding the facts behind why things are what they are and then figuring out a way to change them within the parameters of the system you are operating in.

I do not love it. Wish they had a bunch of apartments and a mixed use living community integrated with the Tennis Center

When you look at things through such a jaded lens, it is no wonder why you get confused by the facts.

Lets break this down since people are really miscontruing this and practically speaking, it does not infringe on someone's right to vote. codes.ohio.gov/orc/3503.21(opens in a new window) (A) The registration of a registered elector shall be canceled upon the occurrence of any of the following: (7) The failure of the registered elector, after having been mailed a confirmation notice, to do either of the following: (a) Respond to such a notice and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections; (b) Update the elector's registration and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections So, if you skip 2 elections your registration is not cancelled. If you skip 12 elections, you will not have your voting rights cancelled. You must also fail to mail in the notification card that was mailed to you to confirm you are still at the address you are registered under. This means that the vast majority of voters who have their registration canceled are due to the fact that they no longer reside at that residence. This is good to know and good for the voter to be aware of too because oftentimes they may have moved and forgot to update their address, which at election time, if they wanted to vote, they would not be eligible anyway because they no longer live in that district. If anything, it prevents disenfrancisement instead of promoting it. Now, certainly, errors will happen. Fortunately, this can be easily remedied by anyone looking to vote if they are engaged in the process. It would affect a very minimal amount of people and the effort to cure is nominal. This would clearly not be seen as an undue burden and if anything, it prevents disenfranchisement of the majority of voters who want to actively participate in the process.

That depends. Did you move? If so, then yes, you need to update your registration. Will the state purge your records if you did not vote in 2 election cycles? I do not know a state that will do so. If you do not vote over the course of say 12-15 years, then I can see that happening. However, that being said, of the people who have not voted over the last 12-15 years, what % of them actually have the same mailing address that they originally registered under?? My guess is very few. Which means that they would have to update their registration because they are in a new district anyway.

Me too. WE are in agreement on that. But citizenry comes with some basic responsibilities. You have to do your part too.

I think it is much more of a Trump effect (or Trump revulsion) than anything. Even though Trump was not on the ballot, he still sought the spotlight during the 18 and 22 elections ( Trump even was fundraising off them for his own gain) and a lot of the politicians who lost were openly seeking his endorsements and mimicking his language. The moderate suburban voter, especially the female suburban voter has been repulsed by Trump for a long time now. Until the Republicans can figure out a way to sideline him, he is going to push the group of voters who are reliable voters toward the Democrats in all elections.

we were out last week with some friends talking about the tourney. I was telling them that it looked 90% at that time that it was going to stay (from what I had been hearing) and that we should hear something this week. Of course the deal was already done and the people in the know could not fully announce it yet, but they were strongly confident the last 2-3 weeks that it was going to stay which was a good indicator.

It was interesting, I thought from the start that Beemok bought the tourney and approached Charlotte because they had familiarity with the region and wanted to be down there but it was actually Charlotte that approached Beemok and actively tried to poach the tourney.

Or you refuse to even acknowledge how there is a valid argument and concern on the other side. You see only what could be considered a minor burden as disenfranchisement of voters for gasp, making them re-register because they have not voted in a generation whereas you do not want to acknowledge that by not having a good registration process, it risks disenfranchisement of the majority of voters who follow the rules.

Considering a 16k seat modern arena would cost around $600 million, a new tennis facility should be roughly the same. 30k seat TQL was $300 million and a world class tennis center is about that plus all the additional courts and infrastructure on site. I am sure it would cost close to $500 million when all is said and done at potential 7.5%-8% interest rate. Cincinnati showed they wanted it and was willing to fight for it. At the end of the day, it would have been a stupid decision to leave. Why quit on something that already works very well and is well supported. It would be different if it were not supported at all. What I would love to see is Beemok open a regional office of Credit One and bring a few hundred Credit One jobs to Mason too as part of the tennis center complex (or even old Beach Waterpark)

Been reading some of the Charlotte news POV on the announcement that they are sort of in shock that they lost the thing. Back in May it was a slam dunk for Charlotte. Kudos to the Cincinnati Business Community

Translation - Facts do not matter to you if they are in conflict with your feelings. Good, at least you are honest about it. I am sorry if educating you on the process was irrelevant. The appeal to authority was to provide you with background as to why things are how they are. Rules can be changed but they must follow a process and the way you often want to go about changing things does not often follow the process and procedures to change those rules because it seems inconvenient to you. IF you understand and can work within the process you can actually create change, otherwise you just complain and pout about how unjust things are and spout meaningless platitudes on "being on the right side of history" and other meaningless BS. At the end of the day, You know what you know and I just end up confusing you with the facts. Not legal semantics. certain words in a legal context have a different meaning than they do in social context. We can argue that the term "undue burden" may mean different things when you talk about it in public or on this forum, but in a legal context it has a very specific meaning. It is much more than just semantics. And for what it is worth. My position, which is the essential accepted position of the majority of jurists in the country, is that 1) The state has an interest to conduct a fair and impartial election and to ensure election integrity, 2) keeping track of election rolls is an important task that the state undertakes to ensure a fair process. 3) Election rolls are important because it makes sure that people are voting where they live and on issues that pertain to them as a local resident of an area, 4) Accurate Election rolls also ensure that the state officials can provide an adequate number of voting precincts and properly staff these precincts to avoid long voting lines and make sure that people who are properly registered are not disenfranchised in the process. 5) While voter registration and re-registration after you move or even begin voting again after a long gap, may create a very minimal burden on the person's ability to vote, it does not actually prevent a person who is engaged in an election from voting if they take a very minimal step to do so, and that even though this presents a very small burden on an individual, the is really no effective way to protect the interests of other voters who may be disenfranchised by people voting without proper registration. In other words, it is selfish for individuals to cry that having to follow any semblance of a process to vote is disenfranchisement. Now, I also think that voting roll purges can be illegal in some cases and perfectly acceptable in others. 1) If a plan to purge voting records is carried out in an arbitrary manner such that its target is to specifically harm one group over another, then it would be illegal. 2) If it is done in a non-arbitrary manner and certain criteria apply to anyone who has their records deleted, it is reasonable. For example, if you put a voter purge method into place that anyone who skips an election would be purged, that would likely be illegal. Too many people skip elections, and it would likely place an undue burden on younger and poorer people who move frequently to update their voting records and maintain an active voting record. However, if you extend that timeline out to say 12-16 years, the calculus changes significantly and the burden should be on the individual at that point to show that they want to engage with the democratic process again if they are around. The longer a voting record is dormant, the less likely the person will re-engage and the more susceptible to fraud it becomes. Mistakes will happen. That is not the standard. The standard is how hard is it to cure the mistake when that happens. IN the case of voting registration it is less than a 5 minute process. Let's be real, anytime you have an electronic record, it is susceptible to hacking or being deleted, etc. Government databases are hacked all the time. People's SSN's are compromised, their personal data gets hacked and it is a nightmare to remedy. In many cases it takes months or longer for people to fix such data breaches if their identity is stolen or deleted. When it comes to voting rights, and a mistaken record that is deleted, this is a much easier remedy and can be done much quicker. I strongly disagree with your assertion, and as pointed out above, the facts certainly disagree with your opinion too, but you are still welcome to your opinion, no matter how uniformed.

The big question comes down to what is a minimal burden (registration is), but even a minimal burden of a basic right would not pass muster unless there is no other way for the state reasonably satisfy the interest they seek. Now, removing political bias out of the equation. THe state obviously has an interest to provide election integrity and to effectively manage their voting rolls. People of different political persuasions may argue that this is rife with politics and can be used to punish political enemies. However, a court (either liberal or conservative) will not look at it through that lens and only examine whether the goal stated by the state is reasonable.

I have, you just choose to ignore them. Whenever facts do not seem to meet your personal viewpoint, you are quick to discard them. Your political viewpoint skews your analysis. You are quick to blame conservative courts for everything. That is not the case. There is a long history of case law in these areas and what constitutes an infringement of Constitutional Law vs what does not. And yes, while I may not be as well versed in Constitutional Law to qualify as an "expert" from the perspective of the court. I do know a whole lot more on the subject than you happen too. At least as far as I know you never passed the bar exam or taken any graduate level classes in Con Law. You need to understand that the decisions of the courts are not based on a few, as you like to claim "conservative" justices just making up their opinion as they go along and expecting people to follow it. It is based on a history of legal cases as well as statutes that have been created for the last 250 years. Judges in many cases are bound by opinions and decisions from the 1940s and 1960s (which were hardly be considered conservative courts). Furthermore, you often like to pop off on court decisions without actually understanding what is in them and just go to your reflexive response of "this illegal conservative court". If you actually examine many of the decisions oftentimes, you do not have all justices voting in a partisan block (actually the majority of time they are not lockstep with what you would expect). So again, it shows your lack of understanding on how the Court system actually works in this country and why you often get the results you do, but it is much easier to keep sticking to your uninformed and factually inaccurate opinions. Again, you misinterpret what I said there. I was not defending poll taxes as you seem to want to think. And yes, to your point Poll taxes do not remove the right to vote, but are still illegal. Same with literacy requirements. So as I have tried to explain to you, what analysis would a court use to determine these are illegal but having to re-register to vote be legal?? There is a big distinction that you want to ignore. The big difference jonboy is that while all 3 of these examples create some sort of burden to voting, the registration process is deemed to not be as burdensome as the other 2 AND the interest of the state in promoting a fair and equitable election cannot be accomplished through any other reasonable means. Poll taxes and literacy tests do not meet that standard which is why they have been held unConstitutional. You may not like the result, but it is perfectly rational result. Also, you seem to want to infer nefarious circumstances to voter roll purges when they can also be looked at as a benign way to get rid of outdated records. You should step away from your position and actually try and look at it through an objective lens and, while you may not necessarily agree with it, allow yourself to at least see the opposing viewpoint as something besides nefarious intent. Then i suggest you find a true infringement of voting rights where such an infringement exists. Maybe try and understand the law and the reasoning behind it instead of constantly just blaming your conservative boogeyman.

^ Did Michael Graves design the old facade at the convention center in the 1980s?