Jed Is Running for State House and Now He's Engaged

[Peaches-n-Beans]

On 12/9/2019 at 3:48 AM, JDuggs said:

I don’t think it’s hard to believe that he’s actually living in a rental house. He’s trying to win an election. Most voters will support or not support him based on his views. But for the undecided voters, more intangible things like integrity or being a good neighbor are going to influence them. Why lie about your living situation when it’s very easy to sleep in your official address every night? Jim Bob obviously prefers his adult children to live at home until they marry, but this is a special circumstance. Jed isn’t looking for an excuse to get out from under JB’s thumb so he can party and hang out with women. He’s trying to appear as upstanding and “grown up” as possible so people will vote for him.

 

On 12/9/2019 at 4:23 AM, Giraffe said:

I was about to post the bolded. If one of the adult women (Jana) were to move out of the big house then I’d be surprised. The Duggars have changed in a lot of superficial ways* and a male child moving out doesn’t strike me as unbelievable.

 

*I don’t for a moment believe they’re any less dangerous.  Imo, taken as a whole, the Duggar clan is outwardly more pinterest-y now than they were when 14 and pregnant again (or whatever their initial exposure was) first aired. 

Ordinarily I would agree with both of you, but 99% of the people asking if he's not living at the big house anymore are having their comments deleted. I pointed out to one commenter who asked something like why did he move that he can't be living in the big house because he's running for office in a different district. I didn't imply that he was lying about where he was living, and didn't say I cared either way. Within about 20 minutes I had a half dozen leg humpers jump on me saying it's not my business where he lives (Which, if I was a constituent in his area (which admittedly I'm not) it kind of would be because he can't represent people if he doesn't live in their district, that's fraud.) and then within an hour the comment I'd replied to had been deleted.

So I don't really have much confidence that he is living in the rental, because if I was an aspiring politician, no way I'd want there to be a grey area on if I lived in the district or not. I'd've just responded to a comment to clear it up or made another post with like, a picture of me and my house. I don't understand why he'd let there be any grey area when it comes to something so simple and basic. If it was like, a weird personal question about his family okay, but he should at the very least be able to definitively prove that he lives where he's running. 

[grandmadugger]

On 12/5/2019 at 9:39 AM, PennySycamore said:

Well, there is this Republican from Kansas who listed his address as a UPS Store on his filing form with the FEC:

Rep Steve Watkns involved in a voter fraud scheme unless he lives at a UPS store

My rep! People don’t care. He hadn’t lived in Kansas since he graduated high school. He had never registered to vote either. But he’s a republican so they voted him in. He just puts off a slime ball aura. 

[DarkAnts]

At a minimum, Jed has a sister maid and accountability buddy. Sister maid may or may not be the accountability buddy. 
 

John David and Joe stayed behind when the rest of the family went to be with Josie at Little Rock. The boys did not do any cleaning. There was even moldy food  on the counters when the older girls went home to get a few items. The girls had to clean up the moldy food.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

9 hours ago, DarkAnts said:

John David and Joe stayed behind when the rest of the family went to be with Josie at Little Rock. The boys did not do any cleaning. There was even moldy food  on the counters when the older girls went home to get a few items. The girls had to clean up the moldy food.

I agree the boys could have done more, but as I recall it the girls had left out a (possibly covered?) bowl of something, maybe onions, that looked like it could sit there for a while. It was in the industrial kitchen and the boys were obviously using the small kitchen or eating out. So they overlooked it as it went moldy. 

What bothered me much more was that it hadn’t occurred to them to take down the Christmas decorations weeks later.

[PennySycamore]

@grandmadugger, you have my sympathy for having that asshat Watkins as your representative. 

[Eponine]

Wild speculation here, but I wouldn't be surprised if he does "live" in a rental, in that he might spend most nights there, but I would be willing to bet money that he does not eat most dinners away, do his own laundry there, or take care of the place as if it were his actual home. I picture him like a university student who "lives" in a dorm but whose family lives close enough for them to eat their parents' food 5 days a week and haul their laundry home.

[FreeTheScapegoats]

Jed, and Jim Bob by extension, are in a catch-22 regarding the living situation. In one hand, you have to show Jed as a reliable, competent adult who has enough successful credentials to be a worthy representative. Following that line, to have him live on his own debt-free at 20/21 is just what they need. On the other hand, to have unmarried children live on their own goes against the Duggar brand that’s been established since 14 Children and Pregnant Again. Their goal is to show theirs is the only godly way, and their version of Gilead should be based on that. They could explain away Jinger’s pants and Jill’s nosering by them being under their husbands’ umbrellas, but the paradox of the penis-havers is that they don’t have that cop-out. Either the Duggars are relaxing or Jed is slightly going against his family, none of which can be allowed to be considered as true. If Jed were, say, Jed Smith, he’d have to go through a primary because other Republicans wouldn’t hesitate to contest him. He’s where he is because of what his last name has come to mean, including the rule of unmarried children sharing bedrooms or bunk beds with their younger, sometimes minor siblings.

[Peaches-n-Beans]

4 minutes ago, FreeTheScapegoats said:

Jed, and Jim Bob by extension, are in a catch-22 regarding the living situation. In one hand, you have to show Jed as a reliable, competent adult who has enough successful credentials to be a worthy representative. Following that line, to have him live on his own debt-free at 20/21 is just what they need. On the other hand, to have unmarried children live on their own goes against the Duggar brand that’s been established since 14 Children and Pregnant Again. Their goal is to show theirs is the only godly way, and their version of Gilead should be based on that. They could explain away Jinger’s pants and Jill’s nosering by them being under their husbands’ umbrellas, but the paradox of the penis-havers is that they don’t have that cop-out. Either the Duggars are relaxing or Jed is slightly going against his family, none of which can be allowed to be considered as true. If Jed were, say, Jed Smith, he’d have to go through a primary because other Republicans wouldn’t hesitate to contest him. He’s where he is because of what his last name has come to mean, including the rule of unmarried children sharing bedrooms or bunk beds with their younger, sometimes minor siblings.

Well it's not just that you have to show him as a reliable competent adult who can be a representative. If he doesn't live in the district he can't run there. So if he's living in the big house it would be fraud (I think, I've lived over seas since I was 11 so I don't actually know much about elections on a local level). It's a much bigger deal then him being seen as competent. 

I do agree that this is a Catch-22 for them though. Either they're committing fraud and he doesn't live there, or their family principals are different then they say in the show (Which we all know they are but the average show watcher might not realize) 

11 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

I agree the boys could have done more, but as I recall it the girls had left out a (possibly covered?) bowl of something, maybe onions, that looked like it could sit there for a while. It was in the industrial kitchen and the boys were obviously using the small kitchen or eating out. So they overlooked it as it went moldy. 

What bothered me much more was that it hadn’t occurred to them to take down the Christmas decorations weeks later.

Actually the christmas decorations didn't bother me. Because It could also be that, their whole family was gone for christmas, it was extremely stressful, so maybe they wanted to enjoy them a while longer then other people would have because they didn't get to during the season. I know my dad is doing this this year because he and my mom are splitting up and this year my mom, sister, and I are going to be visiting my mom's family during christmas, and my sister and I won't see my dad until after. 

On another level, it's a massive house, and they're two people. So It might just not be practical for them to take care of all that property the duggars own and take down the christmas decorations. I mean, my dad's house is what I'd call a big house (4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms,) and that house took 3 of us a few hours to decorate. I can't imagine doing the Duggars house with just two people

[patsymae]

The fraud would just be a joke, kind of, but we are living now with the effects of those jokes--people like Jed quietly taking over state legislatures and then bam--guess what? these people gerrymandered districts and we got 45. They are playing a long game and those of us who tend to not be assholes and not be inclined to conspiracy theories--like me--got gobsmacked.
The Jeds of this world are the assholes who will not only continue the gerrymandering, but pass laws such as forcing physicians to do unnecessary ultrasounds on women, diverting funds from public schools to Christian private schools, denying basic assistance to poor families but rewarding agencies that place poor children for adoption by more affluent Christian families, that ... and so it goes.
Jed is an asshole. He and his ilk, are, however, very dangerous assholes.

[grandmadugger]

14 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

@grandmadugger, you have my sympathy for having that asshat Watkins as your representative. 

Thanks! Say a prayer or two that the Sherrif’s investigation finds something and they remove him. If they do remove him I pray they pick the moderate republican that plans on running against Watkins is appointed. I don’t have high hopes since LaTurner isn’t a Trumper and somehow the republicans that didn’t pick Trump in the primaries now thinks trump is great. 

[SassyPants]

Maybe I am as dense as they come, but I have never understood how a purely democratic election, 1 person, 1 vote, like that utilized in  every contest, except the presidential election in the US, is unfair to any voter or region. If each person gets a vote, how does that put any person at a disadvantage? And in terms of representation, at 1 time when I did the math, citizens of WY had a much greater voice in Congress than those in more populated states. If you divide state population by # of Reps...The founding fathers really didn’t trust the citizens to make educated decisions and left way too much room for politicking when they established the EC. It’s both a shame and a sham, as far as I can see. Then you add in gerrymandering and super delegates and you end up with Trump and Duggar and the shitstorm we currently face.

[purple_summer]

4 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Maybe I am as dense as they come, but I have never understood how a purely democratic election, 1 person, 1 vote, like that utilized in  every contest, except the presidential election in the US, is unfair to any voter or region. If each person gets a vote, how does that put any person at a disadvantage? And in terms of representation, at 1 time when I did the math, citizens of WY had a much greater voice in Congress than those in more populated states. If you divide state population by # of Reps...The founding fathers really didn’t trust the citizens to make educated decisions and left way too much room for politicking when they established the EC. It’s both a shame and a sham, as far as I can see. Then you add in gerrymandering and super delegates and you end up with Trump and Duggar and the shitstorm we currently face.

Because then 1 black person’s vote = 1 white man’s vote and we can’t have that /sarcasm

[Eponine]

11 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

And in terms of representation, at 1 time when I did the math, citizens of WY had a much greater voice in Congress than those in more populated states. If you divide state population by # of Reps...The founding fathers really didn’t trust the citizens to make educated decisions and left way too much room for politicking when they established the EC. It’s both a shame and a sham, as far as I can see. Then you add in gerrymandering and super delegates and you end up with Trump and Duggar and the shitstorm we currently face.

You're absolutely right that they didn't trust citizens as a whole to make good decisions - which is not an unreasonable point of view when a lot of your population couldn't read, was uneducated, and/or had no access to real information about candidates. Not saying there is no other way to deal with this, but I think this isn't recognized enough. The framers absolutely were elitists who wanted there to be a barrier so that citizens were not directly electing people.

The bigger problem though, is of course the disproportionate representation in Congress and the electoral college. But again, that was specifically designed by the framers to deal with political issues they had at the time that really aren't relevant today. Politicking was the entire reason Congress is structured the way it is, and they fully recognized it at the time.

I really hate the fundie/conservative fetishization of the Constitution and the idea that it's a document that should never, ever be questioned or changed to fit modern times.

[grandmadugger]

7 hours ago, purple_summer said:

Because then 1 black person’s vote = 1 white man’s vote and we can’t have that /sarcasm

But they will tell you it’s because big city people don’t have rural people’s best interest in mind or that California will pick the president. Of course these are the same people who want the EC in state elections because they lost and follow that up with they would win more if the EC is abolished. 

[SassyPants]

14 minutes ago, grandmadugger said:

But they will tell you it’s because big city people don’t have rural people’s best interest in mind or that California will pick the president. Of course these are the same people who want the EC in state elections because they lost and follow that up with they would win more if the EC is abolished. 

Stating the obvious here, but places with more PEOPLE will have more VOTES cast, and rightfully so. PEOPLE should count. Empty land masses, while beautiful, do not contain citizens and should not override the votes of actual PEOPLE. 

I am so sick of hearing how less populated states would be at a disadvantage without the presence of the EC. AND why is that? It’s because there are fewer people, and fewer people would mean fewer votes in certain areas...LET THE VOTERS DECIDE, just like they for every other state and local office. Right now we are being held hostage and controlled by a rigged system. In the last election, because of the EC, the majority is being held to the whims of the minority, and then when you add on the unbalanced Rep # in Congress...it just is so frustrating. 

[grandmadugger]

4 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Stating the obvious here, but places with more PEOPLE will have more VOTES cast, and rightfully so. PEOPLE should count. Empty land masses, while beautiful, do not contain citizens and should not override the votes of actual PEOPLE. 

I am so sick of hearing how less populated states would be at a disadvantage without the presence of the EC. AND why is that? It’s because there are fewer people, and fewer people would mean fewer votes in certain areas...LET THE VOTERS DECIDE, just like they for every other state and local office. Right now we are being held hostage and controlled by a rigged system. In the last election, because of the EC, the majority is being held to the whims of the minority, and then when you add on the unbalanced Rep # in Congress...it just is so frustrating. 

Oh I fully agree with you but I’m surrounded by idiots so I hear their reasons more than I want. We elected a democrat as governor in the last election. She’s very moderate and went up against Trump’s bff Kris Kobach.

Full disclosure I am a registered republican and will remain so until I leave Kansas even though I don’t agree where the party is going. We can only vote in the primary for our registered party. I want to do whatever I can to keep Kobach and the likes off of my ballot. 

Back to our last election. The people I am surrounded by were bitching that just a few counties picked our govern and we needed the EC. I tried to explain that looking at the map that way discounted many votes. My county for example had a 300 vote difference. But they wanted to make the 2000 votes null because 2300 voted the way they wanted. After beating my head against the wall trying to explain that everyone deserves to be able to have a voice not just the majority they then told me that abolishing the EC would mean that I would have more losses. I don’t think the majority of them realize until Trump I was a republican though I never voted a straight ticket. That’s just stupid. 

I did successfully shut one of them up the other day by educating them that the reason they can conceal and carry is because our democrat governor wrote the bill when she was a legislator. 

[NachosFlandersStyle]

6 hours ago, grandmadugger said:

But they will tell you it’s because big city people don’t have rural people’s best interest in mind

This drives me up a wall! I live in a state where more than half the population lives in the two largest cities, but districts are drawn so that our state legislature is overwhelmingly rural. Rural GOP legislators are constantly introducing-- and passing-- bills that seem designed purely to fuck with urban residents, like undoing local wage or environmental ordinances, changing seats on state boards so that urban counties aren't represented, or changing around county class designations so that we have less local control than people in less populous areas have. And then people have the gall to turn around and say they're tired of being bossed around by the cities. Excuse me?

[SassyPants]

7 hours ago, NachosFlandersStyle said:

This drives me up a wall! I live in a state where more than half the population lives in the two largest cities, but districts are drawn so that our state legislature is overwhelmingly rural. Rural GOP legislators are constantly introducing-- and passing-- bills that seem designed purely to fuck with urban residents, like undoing local wage or environmental ordinances, changing seats on state boards so that urban counties aren't represented, or changing around county class designations so that we have less local control than people in less populous areas have. And then people have the gall to turn around and say they're tired of being bossed around by the cities. Excuse me?

Why do the few believe that they should have a greater voice than the masses?  How is that equal representation? I know this is wrong too, but it makes me want to scream, move to the water or deal!

[Eponine]

10 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Why do the few believe that they should have a greater voice than the masses?  How is that equal representation? I know this is wrong too, but it makes me want to scream, move to the water or deal!

IMO, this argument is just a blatant show of the racism and prejudice of the people who make it. Why do they think people in urban areas should have less of a voice? Well, those people are often people of color, recent immigrants or their children, or any number of "othered" groups (LGBTQ, not Christian, etc). They aren't real Americans so they shouldn't count as much.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

Speaking as a person living in a state with more pigs than people (Iowa) I get where the republicans are coming from because when we go to 1 person 1 vote and dump the electoral college states like Iowa will be forgotten about, what we want/need will be over run by the needs of say CA, NY, TX, FL. While I agree we need to change our Presidential voting system, we have to make sure y'all don't forget about everything and everyone between right and left coasts. 

It is like Iowa having the 1st caucus in the nation. Part of me says yes, please take it, but another part of me says suck it up folks, for a few months every 4 year the rest of the country has to remember Iowa exists.  

I see both sides of this argument, while I would be ecstatic with liberal laws like they have in CA, their are millions more who wouldn't. Doesn't mean that my vote should be worth 100x more than that of someone in CA, which is essentially what the EC does, it makes votes in small states worth exponentially more than that of those in large states. 

[PennySycamore]

@grandmadugger,  can you clarify something for me?  How does the Electoral College figure into state races in Kansas?  It doesn't in South Carolina.  I thought the EG only dealt with presidential elections.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

1 hour ago, PennySycamore said:

@grandmadugger,  can you clarify something for me?  How does the Electoral College figure into state races in Kansas?  It doesn't in South Carolina.  I thought the EG only dealt with presidential elections.

It doesn't, she was saying that people she knows in her town were saying they should have an EC type system in place in her state because they didn't get the Governor they wanted. 

[front hugs > duggs]

I like the idea of each state getting an amount of electoral votes based on population (i.e. Arkansas getting 6 and California getting 55). However, I believe that how the people vote could better align with this system. For example, currently if 60% of Californians vote Democratic, and 40% vote Republican, all 55 CA votes go democratic. This can make people feel like their vote doesn't matter because California will always go democratic. However, I think it makes more sense in this case to have 60% of the 55 votes (33 votes) go Democratic, and 40% (22) go Republican. I think this way would give more voice to the people, but also acknowledge that CA is a more populated state than AR.

[SassyPants]

8 minutes ago, front hugs > duggs said:

I like the idea of each state getting an amount of electoral votes based on population (i.e. Arkansas getting 6 and California getting 55). However, I believe that how the people vote could better align with this system. For example, currently if 60% of Californians vote Democratic, and 40% vote Republican, all 55 CA votes go democratic. This can make people feel like their vote doesn't matter because California will always go democratic. However, I think it makes more sense in this case to have 60% of the 55 votes (33 votes) go Democratic, and 40% (22) go Republican. I think this way would give more voice to the people, but also acknowledge that CA is a more populated state than AR.

As long as the # of votes is fluid and corresponds proportionally to current population...but as I initially mentioned in the current case of HoR numbers, it does not. Currently, the less populated places are getting an advantage by having a greater HoR  voice/representation. 

[NachosFlandersStyle]

4 hours ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

Speaking as a person living in a state with more pigs than people (Iowa) I get where the republicans are coming from because when we go to 1 person 1 vote and dump the electoral college states like Iowa will be forgotten about, what we want/need will be over run by the needs of say CA, NY, TX, FL. While I agree we need to change our Presidential voting system, we have to make sure y'all don't forget about everything and everyone between right and left coasts. 
 

Iowa is actually  slightly underrepresented in the electoral college, although with its outsized caucus power it doesn't feel that way. http://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280

As a sort of ranty aside, I mostly grew up in IA and have lived and worked there on and off over the years. My feelings about the caucus are complicated. I'm a political junkie and it's very exciting for me personally--it's even gotten me a few jobs. I also think there's some intangible cultural benefit to putting smaller states in the national spotlight every now and then. But it's inherently unfair that most campaigning happens in the same few states every time, and not only that, it's hard to say if Iowa actually gains anything materially by going first. We're not that great at picking winners. I don't know if it gets us any favorable policy outcomes except maybe handouts to ethanol manufacturers. The campaign season is stressful for a lot of people and most of the money is spent on ad campaigns that drive everyone nuts. I've even heard arguments that state and local politics suffer because of the focus on the presidency.