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 had reservations about Franz with her coming from an environmental group, but she seems to have been managing things a bit better than Oregon and California(seems like we have a bit more logging and a bit less of it burning up). Trees have a finite life, log responsibly or we get too much dry dead stuff and it all burns, endangered animals too. Clear cut though, and we get landslides and endanger wildlife habitat. It's a balancing act.
It would be nice to get the air force involved in the fire fighting. So many cargo planes that could be used to dump water, sitting, while everything burns.
Yes I agree. Of all the wacko lefties that have been mentioned for potential governor, I think that she would probably be the least terrible.
As Mtn Surfer mentioned, a more liberal Republican or a more fiscally conservative Democrat could be a sensible choice, and would be the only consideration from my perspective. The far right has gone overboard with their fascist and self imposed control of people, while the far left thinks raising taxes and throwing more money at a variety of things will fix them. NOT! I would like to see WA enact a Prop 13 similar plan to hold property taxes, get tougher on crime and try to find solutions to the homeless/housing shortage crisis.
I wonder if WA holds the record for the longest streak of Dems in the governorship in recent history? While OR and WA sometimes blame CA for it's liberal influence, it seems they are much more one-sided, died-in-the-wool Blue all the way back to the 80s.
Not sure if we need another celebrity. But the general populous seems to love them at least on the Republican side. While I understood the appeal of Reagan and Arnold, I could never see it with Trump. I think many loved that brash, loud, obnoxious in your face New Yorker personality type along with all the drama, tweets, etc... That brand of America that tells you where stick it if you don't like it. But that personality would not go over well in WA. By contrast, a Reagan, Terminator or Pratt type conservative would likely be popular. Just not Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz. lol
Derek
Washington is too socially liberal for a traditional republican to win. They need to pick a libertarian type person who doesn’t wade into the culture war issues and just focus on economics, homelessness, crime and drug epidemic for them to have a shot. Also more than half the population lives in the greater Seattle area, so they need to focus on winning over the suburban vote there. The moment they start speaking about Christian Fundamentalist ideology they already lost.
Washington is too socially liberal for a traditional republican to win. They need to pick a libertarian type person who doesn’t wade into the culture war issues and just focus on economics, homelessness, crime and drug epidemic for them to have a shot. Also more than half the population lives in the greater Seattle area, so they need to focus on winning over the suburban vote there. The moment they start speaking about Christian Fundamentalist ideology they already lost.
I am generally firmly right-leaning, but I agree that sociological issues should be a minimal part, if anything, of politics in general.
I think that the abortion stuff has hurt the right more than helped. And if things like that are hurting the right, then the left just gets stronger, and things like poor crime and drug policies and rampant homelessness will continue.
Sociological issues serve, more than any other topic, to divide this country.
However, I don't think that the left is any better with sociological issues; I obviously have no evidence for this, but I have often wondered how many of the pandemic's self-imposed-mask-police are the same people protesting pro-life issues with signs that say "Keep your policies off of my body"...
I am generally firmly right-leaning, but I agree that sociological issues should be a minimal part, if anything, of politics in general.
I think that the abortion stuff has hurt the right more than helped. And if things like that are hurting the right, then the left just gets stronger, and things like poor crime and drug policies and rampant homelessness will continue.
Sociological issues serve, more than any other topic, to divide this country.
However, I don't think that the left is any better with sociological issues; I obviously have no evidence for this, but I have often wondered how many of the pandemic's self-imposed-mask-police are the same people protesting pro-life issues with signs that say "Keep your policies off of my body"...
While folks within WA and even this thread fall on different sides of all these social issues, you bring up a good point. That is, how far should gov't go in enforcing certain social laws? You can't tell the gov't to stay out of your 'personal life' until you strongly believe they should intervene using this this logic. The problem is, the devil lies in the details with all these issues whether it be vaccine and mask mandates, pro LGBTQ curriculum in public schools, abortion rights, gun control (or lack thereof), drug use, alcohol sales, building codes on private land, conservationism, etc....
If we are going to say these are all personal choices, at what point do we legislate compliance across a society vs. saying follow your own convictions, ethical beliefs, personal standards or lack thereof on these and many more issues? These are complex societal issues where one's choices potentially affect the greater society (their neighbors) and environment around them. So, let's not fool ourselves into thinking the right or left don't want some gov't oversight and intervention or a law of land.
In a nutshell, where do personal freedoms and liberties end and another person's begin? The Supreme Court said in well. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Depending on the issue, right or left, the other side conveniently forgets that their hot button social agenda issue related to personal freedoms affect others around them. Hence, it's not a legitimate cry for personal freedoms in those cases. Or at the very least, its a very self-centered one where one side doesn't give a damn how their decision affects others around them. Therein lies the biggest challenge when considering the ethics of societal laws. We all agree there must be some laws vs. anarchy. So, how do we determine as a society the point at which we legislate certain moral codes even if one side is not going to be happy with the outcome? I don't believe there is an easy answer beyond our democratic process.
In WA the majority leans left. So, should the right completely stand down on their societal issues and convictions? I know there are some issues they will go to grave defending such as abortion. And so, we can't expect them to change on everything. What's a bridge too far? I guess that depends upon their own personal convictions and if they're willing to compromise on certain things to get others accomplished across the aisle. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree and then move forward on many other matters which can be accomplished together. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking a governor won't have to take a hard stand on some of these things including the next pandemic that comes our way. I know it's a very divisive issue and hindsight is always 20/20. But would we have wanted WA to handle a pandemic more like a red state did? I'm sure each state can look back now and see where they could have done thing better knowing now what they didn't know in the heat of battle.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 05-16-2023 at 10:49 AM..
While folks within WA and even this thread fall on different sides of all these social issues, you bring up a good point. That is, how far should gov't go in enforcing certain social laws? You can't tell the gov't to stay out of your 'personal life' until you strongly believe they should intervene using this this logic. The problem is, the devil lies in the details with all these issues whether it be vaccine and mask mandates, pro LGBTQ curriculum in public schools, abortion rights, gun control (or lack thereof), drug use, alcohol sales, building codes on private land, conservationism, etc....
If we are going to say these are all personal choices, at what point do we legislate compliance across a society vs. saying follow your own convictions, ethical beliefs, personal standards or lack thereof on these and many more issues? These are complex societal issues where one's choices potentially affect the greater society (their neighbors) and environment around them. So, let's not fool ourselves into thinking the right or left don't want some gov't oversight and intervention or a law of land.
In a nutshell, where do personal freedoms and liberties end and another person's begin? The Supreme Court said in well. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Depending on the issue, right or left, the other side conveniently forgets that their hot button social agenda issue related to personal freedoms affect others around them. Hence, it's not a legitimate cry for personal freedoms in those cases. Or at the very least, its a very self-centered one where one side doesn't give a damn how their decision affects others around them. Therein lies the biggest challenge when considering the ethics of societal laws. We all agree there must be some laws vs. anarchy. So, how do we determine as a society the point at which we legislate certain moral codes even if one side is not going to be happy with the outcome? I don't believe there is an easy answer beyond our democratic process.
In WA the majority leans left. So, should the right completely stand down on their societal issues and convictions? I know there are some issues they will go to grave defending such as abortion. And so, we can't expect them to change on everything. What's a bridge too far? I guess that depends upon their own personal convictions and if they're willing to compromise on certain things to get others accomplished across the aisle. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree and then move forward on many other matters which can be accomplished together. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking a governor won't have to take a hard stand on some of these things including the next pandemic that comes our way. I know it's a very divisive issue and hindsight is always 20/20. But would we have wanted WA to handle a pandemic more like a red state did? I'm sure each state can look back now and see where they could have done thing better knowing now what they didn't know in the heat of battle.
Derek
It is hard to equate the sides. Unfortunately, for all the talk of libertarianism, I see the Republicans trying to control women's decisions about their body, sexuality, the right to end own life and so on.
On guns, does "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" apply? Does someone's right to own a gun end at where the other human being's or child's body begin? Not really. What I see is that Republicans are on the rampage on such topics nationwide - and I don't see the so-called libertarians in the Republican party trying to stop it.
Both sides like to spend money we don't have like no tomorrow - just on different causes. The activist types in both parties are a major bad news.
I don't see eye-to-eye with the direction and actions of the Democratic party but the toxicity of the Republican interference on the social issues, not to mention the aggressively anti-democratic positions, leaves little choice.
It is hard to equate the sides. Unfortunately, for all the talk of libertarianism, I see the Republicans trying to control women's decisions about their body, sexuality, the right to end own life and so on.
On guns, does "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" apply? Does someone's right to own a gun end at where the other human being's or child's body begin? Not really. What I see is that Republicans are on the rampage on such topics nationwide - and I don't see the so-called libertarians in the Republican party trying to stop it.
Both sides like to spend money we don't have like no tomorrow - just on different causes. The activist types in both parties are a major bad news.
I don't see eye-to-eye with the direction and actions of the Democratic party but the toxicity of the Republican interference on the social issues, not to mention the aggressively anti-democratic positions, leaves little choice.
But I can easily have a counterpoint to everything you just brought up. i.e. who decides at what point that it should or shouldn't be legal when "women's decision about their body" results in the death of a human fetus? Just because the Democrats don't think that is important, that doesn't mean it isn't important to other people.
And the fact that multiple WA state house Democrats were dead-set on trying to ensure that hard drugs were legalized - how is that not "toxicity" in the Democratic party? Is it only "toxic" when you disagree with their opinion?
Politics in this day-and-age are about extremes, i.e. "I'm going to tell you my opinion but completely ignore your opinion because I'm sure that I am right". This idea has perpetrated society, and sadly only seems to benefit the politicians.
While folks within WA and even this thread fall on different sides of all these social issues, you bring up a good point. That is, how far should gov't go in enforcing certain social laws? You can't tell the gov't to stay out of your 'personal life' until you strongly believe they should intervene using this this logic. The problem is, the devil lies in the details with all these issues whether it be vaccine and mask mandates, pro LGBTQ curriculum in public schools, abortion rights, gun control (or lack thereof), drug use, alcohol sales, building codes on private land, conservationism, etc....
If we are going to say these are all personal choices, at what point do we legislate compliance across a society vs. saying follow your own convictions, ethical beliefs, personal standards or lack thereof on these and many more issues? These are complex societal issues where one's choices potentially affect the greater society (their neighbors) and environment around them. So, let's not fool ourselves into thinking the right or left don't want some gov't oversight and intervention or a law of land.
In a nutshell, where do personal freedoms and liberties end and another person's begin? The Supreme Court said in well. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Depending on the issue, right or left, the other side conveniently forgets that their hot button social agenda issue related to personal freedoms affect others around them. Hence, it's not a legitimate cry for personal freedoms in those cases. Or at the very least, its a very self-centered one where one side doesn't give a damn how their decision affects others around them. Therein lies the biggest challenge when considering the ethics of societal laws. We all agree there must be some laws vs. anarchy. So, how do we determine as a society the point at which we legislate certain moral codes even if one side is not going to be happy with the outcome? I don't believe there is an easy answer beyond our democratic process.
In WA the majority leans left. So, should the right completely stand down on their societal issues and convictions? I know there are some issues they will go to grave defending such as abortion. And so, we can't expect them to change on everything. What's a bridge too far? I guess that depends upon their own personal convictions and if they're willing to compromise on certain things to get others accomplished across the aisle. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree and then move forward on many other matters which can be accomplished together. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking a governor won't have to take a hard stand on some of these things including the next pandemic that comes our way. I know it's a very divisive issue and hindsight is always 20/20. But would we have wanted WA to handle a pandemic more like a red state did? I'm sure each state can look back now and see where they could have done thing better knowing now what they didn't know in the heat of battle.
Derek
I actually agree with most of this. The biggest problem with politics, and is becoming more and more pervasive in society, is that we are becoming less-and-less open to others' opinions.
And when it comes to state politics, you are correct. What will happen, and is already happening, is that people are migrating to the states that "fit" them - so the red states get redder and the blue states get bluer. This, of course, will ultimately only serve to further divide us as a country.
But I can easily have a counterpoint to everything you just brought up. i.e. who decides at what point that it should or shouldn't be legal when "women's decision about their body" results in the death of a human fetus? Just because the Democrats don't think that is important, that doesn't mean it isn't important to other people.
.
The Democrats were mostly quite happy to have the very sensible standard of Roe Vs Wade, where the legality was defined by the age where the foetus is viable outside the body, and the process was between a woman and a doctor. A very sensible decision that governs the otherwise blurry line of what control a woman is allowed to exert over her own body, versus the state intervening to protect an ‘almost-citizen’ in peril.
The Republicans rejected ALL the science behind that decision because of their beliefs, including their religious beliefs. And if unchecked, write laws that prevent even legal abortions or life saving measures during miscarriages from proceeding, since hospital legal departments will not sign off on liability from hastily written state laws and regulations that accuse doctors of crimes.
Same reason why they refused to heed the scientific advice of doctors and scientists during the pandemic (not all, just a vocal minority).
You can detail scientific studies to someone until the cows come home. If the data don’t match their beliefs, many will reject it.
The Democrats were mostly quite happy to have the very sensible standard of Roe Vs Wade, where the legality was defined by the age where the foetus is viable outside the body, and the process was between a woman and a doctor. A very sensible decision that governs the otherwise blurry line of what control a woman is allowed to exert over her own body, versus the state intervening to protect an ‘almost-citizen’ in peril.
The Republicans rejected ALL the science behind that decision because of their beliefs, including their religious beliefs. And if unchecked, write laws that prevent even legal abortions or life saving measures during miscarriages from proceeding, since hospital legal departments will not sign off on liability from hastily written state laws and regulations that accuse doctors of crimes.
Same reason why they refused to heed the scientific advice of doctors and scientists during the pandemic (not all, just a vocal minority).
You can detail scientific studies to someone until the cows come home. If the data don’t match their beliefs, many will reject it.
The problems lies with extremes on both sides of the majority of these hot button issues. Regarding the science of the 70s and the medical knowledge of children in the womb, a lot more is known today than was then with 3D imaging, ultrasound along with medical technology which has actually been used to keep premature children alive to full health. A lot has happened in the last 50 years. So, a review of the medical ethics and efficacy of abortion based upon was is considered life in the womb vs. an unfeeling, ball of fleshy mass is a good thing. What if they got wrong 50 years ago based upon limited medical knowledge? Stranger things have happened.
Let's just think hypothetically if that child in the womb is actually fully alive and human vs. a ball of flesh. Shouldn't we as a society at least take into account what medical science now reveals vs. what we didn't know back then? The old thinking was it was just like a cyst in the women's body. Therefore, don't tell her what to do with it. Yet once born, if a mother were to harm her child in any way, it would be considered child abuse which everyone agrees upon. So, I think things are different now. And yet both sides seem unwilling to consider the latest science along with implications of the mother's life if in jeopardy and so forth. So, there are legitimate cases for abortions under certain situations as well.
The same extremes happened with the pandemic where people would rather shoot someone than wear a mask when asked to do if entering a public place. They were outraged anyone would dare infringe upon their personal freedoms even if those clearly had impacts upon others around them. They simply didn't give a damn since it was their body and choice to do with whatever the hell they pleased including infecting others. Medical workers quit their jobs and careers rather than take a vaccine shot and so on. Then all the conspiracy theorists went absolutely crazy with all kinds of urban legends and misinformation. So, we had the two extremes again. My sister in-law still believes Bill Gates invented the vaccine to place nanobots in everyone's' brains to read their minds. She sent me countless blogs on the conspiracies. And on and on the craziness goes. lol
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 05-19-2023 at 07:21 PM..
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.
