Kansas' experiment in concentrated conservatism keeps getting grimmer

[EV_Ares]

Kansas is in the midst of a grim experiment putting crackpot supply-side economic theories into practice. While these economic anti-reforms will have devastating results for poor people in the state, in other respects Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and his legislative allies have made the government more intrusive into the private lives of the state's citizens. April has provided some particularly egregious examples of this disastrous turn.

Kansas Republicans certainly have no intention of taking responsibility for this disaster, which means a search for scapegoats. The targets should not be surprising: poor people, women, and gay people.



Rest of Article: https://theweek.com/articles/551262/kansas-experiment-concentrated-conservatism-keeps-getting-grimmer

[workinclasszero]

1. "poor people, women, and gay people"

These are what the teahaddists hate the most, and non white people of course.

[world wide wally]

2. Apparently a lot of people in Kansas think this is the cat's meow because they just re-elected

these assholes. I feel bad for anyone with a brain that lives there and would suggest you abandon ship and get the he'll out of there.
Too many crazy people live there.

[maindawg]

4. Actually , maybe not

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article17139890.html

WSU statistician sues seeking Kansas voting machine paper tapes


http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article17139890.html

A statistician at Wichita (Kansas) State University is seeing the same unexplained skew for Republican candidates in Kansas's last election as Francois Choquette and James Johnson found in 2008 and 2012.

The pattern is bizarrely consistent--as the size of the precinct increases, the skew from Democratic to Republican vote increases. This would be a logical effect of a vote flipping algorithm. For instance, if small precincts flipped too many votes, they might end up with a zero or negative vote total, which would be proof positive of election fraud. Much less dangerous is flipping more votes in districts with more votes cast.

*****

"A Wichita State University mathematician sued the top Kansas election official Wednesday, seeking paper tapes from electronic voting machines in an effort to explain statistical anomalies favoring Republicans in counts coming from large precincts across the country.

"Beth Clarkson, chief statistician for the university’s National Institute for Aviation Research, filed the open records lawsuit in Sedgwick County District Court as part of her personal quest to find the answer to an unexplained pattern that transcends elections and states. The lawsuit was amended Wednesday to name Secretary of State Kris Kobach and Sedgwick County Elections Commissioner Tabitha Lehman.

"Clarkson, a certified quality engineer with a Ph.D. in statistics, said she has analyzed election returns in Kansas and elsewhere over several elections that indicate “a statistically significant” pattern where the percentage of Republican votes increase the larger the size of the precinct."

The biggest cities in the state, Kansas City (Kansas), Lawrence and Wichita, have bigger precincts and normally vote MORE DEMOCRATIC. To find that they vote more Republican compared to smaller districts shows that something really unusual and unexplained is occurring.

[world wide wally]

6. Then they better do something about it

[hfojvt]

11. that's rather silly

even in a best case scenario - let's say the Democrat wins by 5% (although Sebelius probably won by more, she wasn't running against a Brownback either). They only need to flip 3% of the vote to erase that 5% win 3% less for the Democrat plus 3% more for the Republican = a 1% win for the Republican. Let's say they want to be safe and flip 5% of the vote. They can do that just as easily in a small precinct as a large one - it's only 5%

Take a really small precinct like LV1FG or even 1FF. The first went 12 and 13 (in the state legislature, but then also 14-1-0-12 for Congress) The second went 10-23 (and also 11-0-1-21). 33 total votes in the second precinct and 25 total votes in the first. Flipping 5% of the vote you are changing 1 or 2 votes. Is there really a huge difference between 13-12 and 12-13? or between 12 and 21 and 10 and 23?

Well, oddly enough in this case, in 2008, the Democrat won the legislative race by 4183 to 2817. She out polled the Democratic candidate for Congress who finished 3557-158-191-3132 probably mostly by being anti-choice and pro-gun.

[BillZBubb]

3. Enough Kansans love this stuff enough to keep electing those fools.

Even some of the "blue" states are buying into this right wing baloney. Wisconsin, I'm looking at you!

[stillwaiting]

5. I bet all of the Kansas conservatives simply blame Obama and the evil liberal socialists

for their worsening plight.

Truly lost causes.

So easily misled.

Small government my ass...

[world wide wally]

7. Imagine, if you can, someone saying "I amputated my arm because the guy with a tea bag

on his head said it would get rid of my headache".
Well, this is how we are running our country these days

[jwirr]

8. Are the rich feeling any of this yet?

[SheilaT]

9. Please don't anyone just say, "Oh, those idiots in Kansas

elected, or re-elected the Republicans."

Even without any voter fraud, plenty of people there didn't vote the them.

In addition, too many people, especially the ones that DO vote for these idiots, just don't understand the consequences of the policies now in place. Most people are not capable of real critical thinking about anything.

[hfojvt]

12. not enough people

even though Davis came heart-breakingly close, he did not have any coat-tails. I think we lost ground in the legislature. At least I know my own district went from D to R (it was an "open" seat). I am not even sure what he could have accomplished as Governor considering the legislature he would have been dealing with.

[SheilaT]

18. I lived in Kansas from 1990 to 2008,

so I know what it's like, and I know how much worse it's gotten since I left.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. What will happen

when they run out of the wrong people/groups to blame (which they WILL sooner or later)??? I feel sorry for the less-advantaged people living there. It must be like being tied to train tracks facing an oncoming train.

[hfojvt]

13. they aren't really blaming those groups

that's just hype from the article.

The abortion restrictions? They always favored that, even a complete ban if the SCOTUS wouldn't slap it down. Those have nothing to do with the budget problems.

The LGBT protections? Well that was a nice smoke screen. Once he did that, the media stopped talking about the budget for about a month.

You could say the same about the welfare restrictions on both counts - a long term conservative goal AND a nice media distraction from other issues.

Also, the article flat contradicted itself. First it said this "prevents welfare recipients from spending government-provided funds on things poor people do not spend their money on, such as cruise ships ..." then it calls it "burdens and restrictions". Well, how is it either a burden or a restriction if the poor people are NOT spending their money on it anyway? They can't have it both ways.

[EV_Ares]

14. Amplifying the Indignity of Joblessness Welfare recipients going on cruise ships is fantasy; telling

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)

them where they can buy underwear is nuts.
--------------------------------------------------

You say: "Well, how is it either a burden or a restriction if the poor people are NOT spending their money on it anyway? They can't have it both ways."

Nobody is trying to have it both ways. Also, if they are not spending their money on cruises or other things anyway, why make it a law" The law is cruel, demeaning to poor people & trying to make them feel like second class citizens & worse among the other things going on with this Governor. Your saying they are not spending money on cruises anyway is nothing more than Brownback Thinking.

-------------------------------

The law and others like it provide in their laundry lists of verboten expenses a guide to what some state legislators fantasize are the lifestyles of the poor and anonymous, from liquor, “tobacco paraphernalia” and gambling to tattoos, massages and body piercings to video arcades, movie theatres and swimming pools (because the shiftless poor shouldn’t be encouraged to relax – or take their child for a swim on a hot summer weekend). No more will these indolent sinners be permitted to spend their ill-gotten lucre in a “sexually oriented business” or at a “lingerie shop.”

Given that “lingerie” is just a fancy way of saying “underwear” will Kansas welfare-women now have to go commando? Or just buy it at Walmart instead of Victoria’s Secret, that well-known hangout of the government hand-out set? Wait a second – Walmart sells lingerie, does that make it a “lingerie shop,” off limits to welfare recipients? What qualifies as “lingerie shop” anyway? Will someone sit in judgment about whether a given business sells undergarments too titillating – probably bought in hopes of making more welfare babies – or fancy for a welfare recipient’s station in life? Basically, where does a government get off telling women where they can shop for their underwear?)

http://bit.ly/1Jpe6mI

[hfojvt]

19. it's not ME saying that "they aren't spending money on cruises"

it's the authors of the articles who are saying it, including the one you linked to.

First they say

1. they are already NOT doing it

and then they say

2. it's a humiliating restriction

those two contradict each other.

A person doesn't generally have to fantasize about the life of the poor. Are you trying to say that no poor people have tattoos or piercings, that none of them smoke or drink or gamble?

Is it really some kind of bedrock principle to fight to the death to make sure that poor people CAN spend welfare money on cigarettes?

That objection seems silly to me. I want to make sure that people have food, clothing and shelter. I am not so much in to giving people money so they can buy smokes or booze or tats.

The $25 cash restriction I do not necessarily understand, although if it only applies to ATMs then a person still could go inside the bank and get $500 for their rent (assuming they have that much cash assistance) and they can still pay utility bills and buy groceries with the card.

I gotta admit I do not understand the mindset. Between
A) a law that says people cannot use welfare money to buy cigarettes and
B) somebody uses welfare money to buy cigarettes.

B is the one that pisses me off, not A.

[EV_Ares]

20. As I said you think like Brownback. Enough said.

[UCmeNdc]

15. Republicans always screw up

Then the GOP blames someone else for their mistakes.

[blkmusclmachine]

16. Brownback is a card-carrying member of THE FAMILY. THE FAMILY seeks to replace democracy w/theocracy

[blkmusclmachine]

17. URL: https://thatsmyphilosophy.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/7-mountains.jpg

Comments are my own.