Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't find the Connecticut Democratic party to be all that radical.
You have your "wokesters" on the far left who are radical-- and ineffectual. Just like the far-right has it's "Stop the Steal" folks. Like the Republicans, most of us Democrats are in the middle.
Personally, I'm all for reducing juvenile crime. I'm not for defunding the police. I am for some level of sentencing and criminal justice reform. I think taxes are too high for what we get here in CT, but that infrastructure requires serious investment. I don't think our laws or our public businesses should be able to discriminate against someone and hide behind religion. I think everyone should have affordable medical care. I think public pensions are out of control.
I think these are all pretty conventional positions that most of my Democratic friends-- and many of my Republican friends share.
The politically obsessedd who live politics non-stop and see everything in terms of the right/left divide, unfortunately, characterize those in the opposition by the extremes. I've been told I'm pro-crime and that I want to "give tax money to the unemployed so they can buy drugs."
I agree with those who've said that there's no one representing the MAJORITY of us with reasonable belief systems in the middle.
Disagree with me?
Let's see how long it takes an ideologue who posts on here to purposely misinterpret my positions and tell me I'm wrong.
I think I'm pretty close in beliefs to you. Would also consider myself independent-ish, democrat-ish. I'm interested to see what others think.
As for how the party became more radical than its constituents I think it has to do with the two party system (polarization which leads to lack of accountability in a blue state, racing left in the primaries with no bounce back to the center), etc.
Definitely an unfortunate situation. I wish we had alternate/ranked choice voting in elections, and it's a shame MA voted no to the idea.
The statements below are my opinions, based upon the links I provide, & other things I've read, which are too exhaustive to document here. You decide for yourself...
I would say racking up $41B in cumulative life-to-date state pension shortfalls is a specific example of liberal financial policy. This source says that CT ranks dead last in public pension funding:
I also feel that CT having the 5th highest overall tax burden could also be considered to be a specific example of liberal policy, that is, if this source is correct:
I do not personally see CT as radically Liberal, however...such as Washington DC, or Washington State, or even, MA, or RI, & this survey reflects my opinion:
I would need more clarificaton on the definition of "radically liberal" I don't think being ranked as 13th most Liberal, by this source, would qualify CT as being radically Liberal:
So, these are my personal opinions on this topic, & none are being presented as fact. I have cited sources I've used in formulating these opinions, that you may agree, or disagree with as being accurate.
I have no idea what the motive was, of leaders in CT, that pushed the state left over the past ~40 yrs. Many were elected, so "how" it happened, is a reflection upon how CT residents voted.
I'm interested in reading what the opinion of others here are.
Your opinions are incorrect, altho the pension debt is correct. One thing about the debt is that its not all due at the same time. If it were the state would be in big trouble. The tragedy of the pension debt is the Govt lost the power of compounding over time. aka "time value of money" by not funding the pensions when the payments were due.
Sanctuary cities has nothing to do with nothing. It just allows undocumented immigrants to go to the police for help and not worry about their immigration status. It's in everyone's interest for people to help police solve crimes regardless of their immigration status.
The statements below are my opinions, based upon the links I provide, & other things I've read, which are too exhaustive to document here. You decide for yourself...
I would say racking up $41B in cumulative life-to-date state pension shortfalls is a specific example of liberal financial policy. This source says that CT ranks dead last in public pension funding:
I also feel that CT having the 5th highest overall tax burden could also be considered to be a specific example of liberal policy, that is, if this source is correct:
I do not personally see CT as radically Liberal, however...such as Washington DC, or Washington State, or even, MA, or RI, & this survey reflects my opinion:
I would need more clarificaton on the definition of "radically liberal" I don't think being ranked as 13th most Liberal, by this source, would qualify CT as being radically Liberal:
So, these are my personal opinions on this topic, & none are being presented as fact. I have cited sources I've used in formulating these opinions, that you may agree, or disagree with as being accurate.
I have no idea what the motive was, of leaders in CT, that pushed the state left over the past ~40 yrs. Many were elected, so "how" it happened, is a reflection upon how CT residents voted.
I'm interested in reading what the opinion of others here are.
As a CT resident here's my take:
- I agree with you on pensions. I'm all for public worker's rights in nearly every other way but it's almost parasitic to be able to not work for (potentially) decades and still take income (which, due to corruption, can be quite a handsome amount).
- CT being a sanctuary state isn't that big of a deal to me. There's so little illegal immigration here that it has nearly no impact, and the vast majority of people who come to the USA are hard working who contribute. And if not them their kids are even more likely to. You could say it lowers the value of labor, sure, but a lot of those jobs are vacant right now anyway. So again not really a problem to me.
- The last two are about CT being "radically liberal" or not. I'd agree with you again that we're liberal but not radically so. Radically, like any other word, is subjective so there's no one clear definition of "radical." Additionally politics isn't just a left-right binary; there's economic regulation (fiscal and monetary policy) versus social regulation (for example weed legalization). And even then it's possible to radically liberal on some issues on aspect of regulation while being centrist or even conservative on others. It's more nuanced than just "Left v Right" and I think boiling it down to that is making polarization worse.
(2) Convictions for the following offenses shall not be eligible for
erasure pursuant to this subsection:
(A) Any conviction designated as a family violence crime, as defined
Substitute Senate Bill No. 1019
Public Act No. 21-32 7 of 33
in section 46b-38a; or
(B) Any offense that is a nonviolent sexual offense or a sexually
violent offense, each as defined in section 54-250.
From the Hartford Current:
"Crimes that will not be erased include burglary with a firearm, stalking, voyeurism, sex-related crimes involving minors and assault on the blind, elderly or pregnant women, among others."
I'm just not seeing how enticing and child porn are NOT sex crimes involving minors or non-violent sex crimes which are clearly excluded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers
I already know the answer, I'm letting you and others dig your self's into a deeper hole. It would be funny if this was 4chan, but this place is a bit more serious.
BGS 54-250 defines the crimes that require a person to register on the sex offender list.These crimes are not eligible for erasure. Never have been and never will be.
You guys keep posting articles that are out of date though.
Thank you both for fighting back and posting supported written facts including sectioned defintitions. You do the CT Forum justice. I'm really embarrassed that I fell for the bald faced lies before. Unbelievable.
Your opinions are incorrect, altho the pension debt is correct. One thing about the debt is that its not all due at the same time. If it were the state would be in big trouble. The tragedy of the pension debt is the Govt lost the power of compounding over time. aka "time value of money" by not funding the pensions when the payments were due.
Sanctuary cities has nothing to do with nothing. It just allows undocumented immigrants to go to the police for help and not worry about their immigration status. It's in everyone's interest for people to help police solve crimes regardless of their immigration status.
But where they (and maybe you) got the pension debt wrong is that the state has a well regarded plan to pay that debt off. I’ve given links to it several times already. The plan is so well regarded that four credit rating agencies has upgraded Connecticut’s credit rating. They would not do that unless they were pretty certain the plan is going to work. And even more to the state’s credit is that they are about to make a $1.2 billion advanced payment to the pension funds. This is because the state has maximized the Rainy Day Fund at $4.5 billion. That pretty good news. Also keep in mind that the state did reform its pension plan to a more self funding model. The worst of the state’s pension obligations come due over the next eight years but then SIGNIFICANTLY drop from then on relieving the strain on our budget.
The other thing that is misunderstood is our state’s tax burden. The State of Connecticut may have the fifth highest tax burden in the country but a more comprehensive analysis shows that a portion of that is due to taxes Connecticut residents must pay to other states. All those high income commuters to New York must pay income taxes to the State of New York and if their job is in the city, they must pay taxes to the City of New York. This is a tax burden the State of Connecticut has no control over.
Finally keep in mind that being No. 1 in personal income means state residents can afford a higher tax burden and many even choose that higher tax burden. They demand their communities provide the best education for their kids. They demand that their public facilities (roads, public buildings, parks, etc.) similarly be the best. That’s why towns like West Hartford are still so desirable even though they have some of the highest taxes in greater Hartford. It’s considered the price you pay to live there and many are willing to pay it. It’s their choice. Jay
I would like to take a stab at your question, "How did Connecticut's Democratic party become so radically liberal?". But mind you, this is just a guess.
I think the root cause is our primary system, which I believe is similar in Connecticut as it is here in New York. The problem is so many people do not vote in the primaries, so the people who do come out are often the party true believers, many of the them the radicals of the left or the right.
Both major parties have the radicals wings coming out, but the Democrats, being our left wing party, have it potentially the worst.
I do think our Democrats choose the more radical candidates, but I have also reminded my state representatives that a shift of just about 1 in 15 voters would have wiped out their last victories, and asked them "Have you be contacted far more the last several weeks after the crime erasure bills?" as a "gentle" reminder.
Add in, first term WH occupants lose DC seats almost every time, and local races quite often get caught in the whirlwind.
Many I know have written, and almost all, just like I, told them we saw your votes as a matter of public record, do not care what you say about them, but will judge you in the ballot box based on our points of view concerning the impropriety of these votes.
I do think our Democrats choose the more radical candidates, but I have also reminded my state representatives that a shift of just about 1 in 15 voters would have wiped out their last victories, and asked them "Have you be contacted far more the last several weeks after the crime erasure bills?" as a "gentle" reminder.
Add in, first term WH occupants lose DC seats almost every time, and local races quite often get caught in the whirlwind.
Many I know have written, and almost all, just like I, told them we saw your votes as a matter of public record, do not care what you say about them, but will judge you in the ballot box based on our points of view concerning the impropriety of these votes.
Depends on how you defy "radical".
In terms of agenda (such as this bill or defunding/eliminating police) I agree. In terms of dangerous lies about our democracy and science (which in the long run may be a little more important), the Republicans "win" here. If they can get past that kind of stuff and all the Majorie Taylor Greene type nonsense, they could make a lot more inroads thanks to the crime issue. I am definitely more left than right, but if I lived in NYC and Maya Wiley had won the primaries, I would've gone for Sliwa and I think he would've surprised in that election. Similarly, in 2008, I was ready to actually vote McCain over Obama (didn't hate Obama, but more experience combined with that while I didn't fully agree with McCain, I saw him as reasonable and someone who would at least try to govern for all) until he went with Palin for a running mate.
If Republicans have more McCains and Romneys out there (no, I didn't vote for Romney in 2012, Obama had "proved" himself to me, but I wouldn't fear for the country had he won), and less Greenes and Trumps, they'd do quite well and even in the liberal Northeast it wouldn't get to outrageous bills like this.
Your opinions are incorrect, altho the pension debt is correct. One thing about the debt is that its not all due at the same time. If it were the state would be in big trouble. The tragedy of the pension debt is the Govt lost the power of compounding over time. aka "time value of money" by not funding the pensions when the payments were due.
Sanctuary cities has nothing to do with nothing. It just allows undocumented immigrants to go to the police for help and not worry about their immigration status. It's in everyone's interest for people to help police solve crimes regardless of their immigration status.
Thx for your opinions. I'm surprised that laws were not written that forced the CT state gov't to adequate fund the pension fund. I hope Lamont's plan turns things around. He is definitely not a radical Liberal, so maybe CT voters are ready for some more balance, like he brings to the table. He needs more support to keep the radical liberals at bay, & keep the state more centered. The "How" part of the OP's query is mostly attributed to past elections.
Thx for your opinions. I'm surprised that laws were not written that forced the CT state gov't to adequate fund the pension fund. I hope Lamont's plan turns things around. He is definitely not a radical Liberal, so maybe CT voters are ready for some more balance, like he brings to the table. He needs more support to keep the radical liberals at bay, & keep the state more centered. The "How" part of the OP's query is mostly attributed to past elections.
The plan to address pension funding was not Lamont’s plan. It was Governor Dan Malloy’s. Lamont is just carrying it out and being fiscally prudent to add to it.
I agree that Lamont needs to be kept more centered and to keep the radical left at bay. Given his support of a number of their bills however, I’m not sure he’s doing that. Jay
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as a "gentle" reminder.
