Brutus_buckeye

I think the amendment will surprise people and while close, I think it is going to fail. The language is a bit of an overreach in my opinion (it does not just guarantee the right to an abortion for the first trimester or 15-20 weeks which is where the majority sits) and it will be attacked vociferously for that reason. 1) looking at the final results of Issue 1, you had a 57-43 vote split. It would not be unreasonable to argue that at least 5-8% of the No on Issue 1 vote was from pro-life leaning voters who did not agree with the Issue 1 position and found it to be an overreach. If you take that margin away, you have an extremely close vote. 2) November election is an off year election and outside of city council races, there is not much on the ballot. It will be hard to get turnout more than what happened in August for the special election so you have a lot of people who are just not going to show up even though this is on the ballot. 3) It is always easier to vote no on an Amendment than yes. So the burden now is on the yes voters. So if your electorate looks pretty similar to what you have in August and the big question is how many of the 57% are more Republican leaning who did not like issue 1 but more supportive of Pro-Life issues OR are pro-choice but find this particular amendment a bridge to far.

Would prefer to see the W&S building go first if that would happen.

I enjoyed watching him as the spokesman for Arby's but he just cant quite stack up to Ving Rhames voice of Arby's now

I saw that too. One thing that A&M did not take in to account was IRS rules getting in the way. It is a difficult situation for many colleges because enforcement has never been equal. Certainly the IRS can police some of this, but that really only happens at the edges, like when A&M goes a bit too far. However, lets not pretend that this is going to stop A&M from operating at the far edges of the gray area. They have done that for decades. Also, the NCAA while impotent still is a force to be reckoned with for some schools so their enforcement is not uniform. Schools like A&M, Ohio State, Alabama, Michigan, Texas, North Carolina can pretty much operate with impunity because they have a war chest and size that can scare off the NCAA regulator who would try and make an example of them. Schools like Boise, Cincinnati, ECU, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Colorado etc. have to walk a finer line because they do not have the same level of resources to fight the NCAA, they do not have the same national support such that the NCAA could still try and make an example out of them. So if they are an up and comer and skirting the rules, the big boys with the help of the NCAA can make their lives difficult.

Right now it is the wild west out there. What is more likely to happen is Congress will pass something to provide rules and stricter guidelines that allow the NCAA to police things better and have much tighter restrictions again. Right now each state pretty much lets their athletes do what they want and it causes issues for schools in other states whose statehouses are more restrictive or have not addressed the issue yet. I know one big issue is Texas A&M and their collective. They are pretty much skirting the rules of fair play with their collective (and IRS Rules). It has been so bad that the SEC is begging the NCAA to try and step in to regulate the situation but the NCAA is a feckless organization at this point. So the SEC has threatened to let all their schools do what A&M is doing which will not be good for the game. I think you will start to see more rules and restrictions around the transfer portal in the coming years when things settle down.

It will but not anytime soon.

I think Clemson and FSU will have a lot of hurdles to bolt soon, but at the end of the day the end of the ACC is nigh. The JPMorgan negotiations with FSU are very interesting at this point and could pave the way for a College Football Premier League in the future, but I think that concept is still at least 10 years off. The bigger question is whether this give FSU the leverage to break off from the ACC for a few years until they can find a home. I do not think the SEC is viable right now, because ESPN does not need to negotiate against itself to keep FSU happy. They are guaranteed its rights through 2036 wherever FSU plays. I do not think the BIG will touch FSU as long as their rights are controlled by the ACC. If FSU is able to pay the hefty buyout, that will certainly change everything though. That is what makes the JPMorgan thing quite interesting.

The project is growing on me. Having something to activate the street level with retail and restaurant in that area is needed. Wish the office part could be more dynamic and taller but in the current environment, it is a cheap way to get Class A office space in a city that really needs a reboot of much of that level. Still would love to see another pure Class A office tower in the future but obviously the market has changed.

I do not disagree with you. It was an overreach and panic attempt by some Republicans to stop abortion as well as a short window of opportunity for others who wanted to capitalize on the abortion issue to drive turnout on an issue they have been wanting to address for many years. I personally found Matt Huffman's comments shameful where he said voters do not know what is good for them. This has become a common statement by politicians on the left and right (in stronghold states that are strongly red or blue) where they criticize the voters for voting down their proposal. Instead of that Huffman would be best taking a dose of humble pie and being conciliatory to the voters and figuring out a path forward. Admit it was an overreach and next time listen better to what voters would want (not just the base). Quit blaming voters for the loss. It used to be politicians were better than that. Supporters may blame "voters" but politicians should be more dignified.

You clearly are not talking about me because i have never said that. What i have said is that in general, many people reflexively vote no on many of these amendments so just that alone is an uphill climb for anyone looking to pass something like this (or any amendment for that matter). However, I never said that anyone who voted no is some dumb rube. I have always said there were many legitimate reasons to vote yes or no for the matter and I really did not get worked up either way with the results.

I doubt it. Something like this has to be brewing for a few years and likely would suffer a number of failures until it could be reconstituted in a form that would be more palatable to majority of voters. Also, you need a fringe issue to captivate an engaged base to vote for it. The problem was that the issue was rushed and really was a hail mary pass by the legislature when placed on the ballot. The election I believe was not scheduled until May, and they had 90 days to organize people to vote for something that they may not understand. It is the natural inclination of people to vote no just based on that. On its own it would not have stood a chance. However, you now had an issue like abortion that stokes passions of many voters, especially conservative voters. By coupling the issue to engage the right to life crowd, you have something that could potentially drive people to the polls. Without the abortion issue, Issue 1 stood no chance. With the abortion issue, it was a hail mary play that should not have been attempted. I believe I said a couple months back that it would fail like 60/40 or 62/38 and I believe it failed 57/43

It is sad because he has the block of support that will run through a wall for the guy, but if you look at the numbers the majority of Republicans do not support him. So, it is pretty tough to win an election when the best you have performed is 46% in his best year and that is before he went off the deep end and threw a temper tantrum after losing. It is sad for the GOP because he commands so much attention in the field right now and may very well win a primary (I hope not), but again, his behavior is exposed and he really cant win. Given 1/2 the GOP does not want him, they will not all rally around him as their nominee come election time. For me, I would sit out the presidential race again instead of vote for Trump. There are a lot of people who feel that way. It is hard to win when you lose support like that. It is an example of the marketplace of ideas rejecting the bad ideas.

And the majority of Americans see them for what they are. They are a bunch of baffoons. However, like everyone, they are still entitled to their voice even it is wrong. Take Greene for example, her speech has gotten her marginalized in Congress and even kicked out of the Freedom Caucus. She may be someone who gets press clippings, just like Anthony Weiner did years ago with the Democrats, but she was never someone taken seriously by her peers. she will never amount to someone with any real power beyond her district. Same with Gaetz, Same with Boebert, and same with AOC.

You obviously do not believe in free speech. I think the American Experience has shown over our history that the open marketplace of ideas has led to make our country a thriving success. When you suppress thought, even thought and speech that may be vile or disgusting, it allows things to fester. When you get them out into the open space, you allow them to stand or fail on their own. People will come to see vile thoughts and speech for what they are and reject them. History has shown this to be true. This is the problem with Germany. They "claim" to believe in free speech but they do not. They feel that certain speech needs censored because it is so vile. As you see in Germany, there is a seething underground of neo-nazi's and other people that want to usurp the rights of the people. The misguided belief of those in power believe that if this comes out in the open, people will find it acceptable. That is false. The majority of people will reject lies when presented with the truth. Furthermore, free speech in European countries has never been a core tenet as it has in the United States. That is why you see jurists from all political persuasions stand up for free speech, even in its most vile forms. I know it may be inconvenient to you and your personal beliefs but as a student of history as you may claim you are, I think it is important that you study the basis for free speech laws in the United States and how they should not be feared as you want to try and claim.

never said anything about watching TV, a political talking head can be on TV, radio or in print. Also, it is always a quick retort for someone to accuse someone who does not follow the progressive mantle of just watching Foxnews or Tucker or O'Reilly so it cuts both ways.

I too am a history connoisseur. Like you, It has also been a hobby of mine for the last 20 years. I also like studying WWII history too. I chose to spend my college degree on other disciplines but studying history is a nice hobby. I think your problem is your analysis and you are letting your collective feelings on certain issues cloud your rational judgement. Where I feel you struggle is that you see some of the news, whether true or misinformation, and you have no faith that the marketplace of ideas cannot create a correction. In an open society with free speech, you will not have what happened in Germany in WWII, which is why free speech (all speech including hate speech) should be protected. Yes, you will have occasional small groups who try and exert their evil influences, but in an open society that is truly committed to the free flow of ideas, hateful ideas will never grab a foothold and be able to truly grow. I have always been someone who has been committed to free speech with really no exceptions.

In this particular case, I agree with you. the issue at hands today is about pure politics. At least by the people that put it on the ballot.

But Charlottesville was shocking because it was a one time event. In the 60s these events were going on repeatedly. In the 60s African Americans did not have equal property rights and redlining was a major issue. Charlottesville was not a god event, but to act like it rises to the same level as the racial strife of the 60s or even much of the same issues in the 90s does a disservice. Acting as if the isolated event in Charlottesville is the same as the lynching of Emmitt Till or the desegregation of schools in the South trivializes those past heros who stood up against a system that was against them. Charlottesville was not the same thing. To act as if "white supremacy" is a greater threat today than it was in the 1960s is just devoid for actual reality. Note, this does not mean racism does not exist, but the hyperbole around the "white supremacy" boogeyman does a disservice to all. If I actually ever watched Tucker or listened to him you may have merit in your comment, but i really have no clue what Tucker says since do not pay attention to him. What is amusing is that you reflexing want to attack this statement as meritless but you have absolutely ZERO facts to support your position that 1) White Supremacy is the greatest threat we face today and 2) White Supremacy is a greater problem in the US in 2023 than it was in 1963. Maybe if you had facts to compare the two times to show why it is worse off today than in 1960s or even 1990s then your statements will not be dismissed as nothing more than pure hyperbole.

I do not see how that is in any way is the same level as Jim Crow era laws, banning interracial marriage, etc. etc. etc. While you may find the law disagreeable, to act like it is the new Jim Crow is demeaning and insulting to those who lived through it and is just hyperbole that does not represent reality.

Gaslighting? I think you need to live in reality or at least gain some perspective. Can you honestly say that "white supremacy" is as big of a problem in 2023 as it was in 1963, 1973 or 1993? Can you name examples where as a society we have regressed to a position worse than where things were back then?? Take an honest look at history, maybe start living in reality for a bit instead of just parroting the hyperbole that is presented by so called talking heads.

You apparently are not listening to your "dog whistle" when it goes off and instructs you to mobilize, or you must be missing your "white supremacy bat signal" lol. I find all of these comments on dog whistle statements quite amusing. I have never known there was some secret code for white people to communicate that their true intentions are to subvert the will and powers of African Americans. Sounds pretty cartoonish if you ask me, although it seems to be a nonsensical talking point among some in the political media. Obama won because he captivated an audience, both black, white, asian, latino, etc to vote for him. He won because he had an outsized personality that captivated people. People were more enthralled with his personality and charisma than his positions. The same was true about Trump in 2016. He won because his personality and charisma appealed and captivated people even if they did not love his ideas (and by charisma and personality, I mean he captivated more people in that regard than Hillary Clinton, whereas a more charismatic Democrat would have likely won easier). The whole white supremacy thing is like the boogeyman and it is completely overblown. I find it amazing how so many people believe these idiot talking heads who say "white supremacy" is the greatest challenge of our time in 2023. These statements are completely devoid of reality. Now, this does not mean that racism is nonexistent, and there certainly are not challenges and issues that remain from our past, however, to call "white supremacy" the major issue of our time just ignores the facts and is insulting to many people who lived in the Jim Crow era. Overall, the facts support that as a society, compared to 60, 40, 20 years ago, we are a lot more tolerant toward people of all races and creeds. Last I remember, I do not think there have been any calls to move back toward "separate but equal" amenities." Inter-racial marriage is common and growing. Back 30-40 years ago, inter-racial dating was not as common of a thing but now it is commonplace. In the last 20 years you have gone from the concept of a civil union being a novel concept in society to the majority of people being accepting of gay marriage and laws that protect the equality of people of all races and sexes. So to call "white supremacy" the greatest problem of the day is insulting to many people that have come before and actually forged those paths and fought those battles. it also does not reflect reality.

Not exactly, to do so would require approval by the voters. The legislature could not act on its own to take away rights.

Honestly, I agree with you. everyone is too worried about the 60% threshold but this requirement is more troubling that the 60% threshold and a very legitimate point IMO

And this would not be an accurate statement. In fact, a 60% threshold actually prevents the government from acting and keeps more power with the people in the majority of cases. Let's use abortion as an example. Let's assume that the abortion amendment has already passed. Now, afterward, you change the law to the 60% threshold. Can the Ohio legislature or government implement a law to restrict or ban abortion at that point ? The answer would be no, the legislature could not do anything unless the voters approve a change to the amendment that gets a 60% majority. In this particular case as well as most cases, it prevents current rights in the Constitution from being usurped by legislative action and it would prevent the mob mentality of the day from being able to pass laws that restrict their rights. Our differences are not that you are a hypocrite. If you feel you are a hypocrite that is your opinion, but I would not characterize you as a hypocrite. I think the difference is a recognition of the importance of minority rights when it comes to changing a principle organizing document like a constitution vs general governing documents. If you oppose it, that is fine, that is your opinion and it is perfectly legitimate opinion to hold on the issue. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose Issue 1 just as there are legitimate reasons to support Issue 1. So no, I do not think you are a hypocrite for opposing Issue 1. Dont be so hard on yourself

I think that depends on how you view the courts. If you feel the Court will just rubber stamp everything the legislature does then obviously that would be true. I think historically and even today, you really have never had that, both with the Ohio Supreme Court and obviously SCOTUS. With the Ohio Court, you would certainly get many issues where the Court would align on legal reasoning with what the legislature wants. However, part of that is the position that the conservative court would take on the case as leaving it to the "will of the legislature" as long as it does not squarely contradict other state enshrined rights. However, I think with the conservative court, you still do not have an automatic rubber stamp of everything the legislature does and you certainly would have them step in and stop a complete overreach. Now obviously, this is a matter of opinion and to be fair, I would be more skeptical about a liberal judge than you would in many cases, but that is mainly both of our own implicit bias than maybe what is actually going on. Citizenship issues are Federal, but there are certain issues such as getting a drivers license, etc that are state matters. Theoretically, 50% of the population could pass a state amendment to bar immigrants from getting certain state ID's, just like states like California allow illegal immigrants to get driving privileges. I think Florida, in response to the Chinese threat, passed a law that bars Chinese Nationals from purchasing property in Florida. This may be struck down in the Federal Courts, but it creates a lot of issues because it is overly broad and prevents and restricts property rights from many people with legitimate intent and legal means to be in the country. It is a poorly conceived law (I think it should likely be overturned but who knows) but it is a hurdle that would have to be dealt with regardless.