The Most Progressive Candidate for Governor is the Most Outlandish

The policy objectives of Shri Thanedar’s Michigan gubernatorial campaign are farfetched.

TV ads by Shri have covered a range of topics, from highlighting his immigration status, his affinity for Michiganders, to his desired policy outcomes, Shri is supposed to be “just like me.”

Though Shri was unsure of which party’s nomination to run for, he has styled himself as the “most progressive candidate for governor.” I detect a hint of pander. If you don’t know if you’re a republican or democrat and proceed to advocate outlandish policy objectives, you might be fishing for support. It’s entirely plausible that Shri Thanedar genuinely holds these “progressive” views, but even admitted socialists strain to get much traction on these views alone.

Here is a selection of Thanedar’s proposals as described in a series of TV ads and his website.

-Medicare for all

-Free childcare

-Paid parental leave

-Taxing the wealthy

-$15 minimum wage

-Free college tuition

-Student loan forgiveness

-Closing charter schools

-Establish year round schooling options

-Fix the potholes

-Increase Planned Parenthood funding

-Eliminating bail for domestic violence

-Free university classes for seniors

-Assault weapons ban

-Sanctuary state status

-Release of all prisoners convicted of marijuana offenses

When dealing with federal policies, I prefer to leave arguments to what is constitutional, eschewing what is good or bad policy. States are different. Our system empowers state governments to take on more roles as well as different roles. This is where the prudence of the policy must be discussed.

On a variety of fiscal measures, Michigan is a middle of the pack state. On some measures it’s better off than other states and in other measures it’s worse off. Shri’s asinine policies make even the good measurements irrelevant.

These policies are not feasible. With the exception of four of those issues, every policy mentioned is dependent on revenue i.e. the age-old question of who is going to pay for it. States put themselves in a very odd position when they want to spend their way to better quality of life.

Every attempt to steal earnings from workers results in significant backlash. Taxation is a funny thing when viewed in the grand scheme of fifty different states. Citizens cannot be compelled to remain in a state when taxes go up or when a government’s credit rating is terrible.

It’s a poor business model to rely on compelled acquiescence to theft from individuals who have no legal obligation to remain in the state.

If people vote for Shri and Shri wins, people will vote against him by moving out of the state. The exodus of individuals from progressive states is proof that progressive policies drive people away, increasing the burden on those who remain, and harming those who the progressive policies were supposed to help.

I am surprised enough Michiganders tolerate our oppressive auto-insurance regime.

Two of Shri’s proposals are odious to the Federal Constitution and the Michigan Constitution. One is obvious, the Assault Weapons Ban. This violates the Second Amendment, but it also violates Michigan’s Constitution. The state constitution explicitly protects the right of the PERSON to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. The second violates the Michigan State Constitution in that all misdemeanors are bailable by sufficient sureties. In most states, and in Michigan, domestic violence is a misdemeanor.

Two more of the proposals are just ignorant. Raising the minimum wage is a terrible idea when you can’t compel businesses to…

A: refrain from firing workers.

and

B: refrain from pushing the added cost to the consumer.

Releasing those convicted of “non-violent” marijuana offenses is ignorant of the nature of criminal convictions. Pot possession is an easy low-level offense to plea down to. People in jail or prison for pot are not a bunch of high school drops out who like to smoke recreationally; many are drug dealers, impaired drivers, and other unsavory individuals who took a plea for a lesser offense.

If this were a state like Illinois, I might be scared that Shri could win. However, his progressive ideas are a laughing stock, incongruous to the very Middle America populace that is Michigan. He may be able to woo the far-left, but that will be it.

Comments
No. 1-25
streiff_is_a_moron
streiff_is_a_moron

You can't own land mines, land mines are defensive weapons. For someone wishing to protect their "castle" why shouldn't they be allowed them? You claim we're entitled to military grade weapons. And I don't know a single gun owner who doesn't claim defense of life and property(where allowable by state) as a justification for owning their guns.

I suppose you're cool with random idiots with lots of guns holing up and keeping a standoff with law enforcement since who is to say what is and isn't tyranny in your mind? The Bundy's, Randy Weaver, etc - they were just exercising their rights!

jay1723
jay1723
streiff_is_a_moron
streiff_is_a_moron said (edited): JakeWagner - clearly there are limits, otherwise I have no doubt you'd be walking around with an RPG for "self defense" or "hunting" or "sport shooting". That being said just because something has the inertia of time on its side, doesn't make it just or reasonable. Slavery had the inertia of time on its side. Blacks not being full citizens had the inertia of time on its side. Women being denied the vote had the inertia of time on its side. Lots of bad ideas have been bad ideas for a very long time. I'm not saying you don't have a right to own a gun, but I know for a fact there are limits to what kind of guns you can and should own, and I'm certain the framers never intended a civilian to acquire their own Armories to use in whatever manner they saw fit. That right can and has been revoked for many Americans who are felons. So please don't pretend that anything goes. Please tell me why any average American who isn't in law enforcement or in the Armed Forces should have a right to a gun that is capable of killing as many people as the clip can hold, as fast as trigger can be pulled? Other than...THE 2ND AMENDMENT SAYS SO...because that's not what the 2nd Amendment says...at all. If it did, why aren't you writing your congressman petitioning them to allow you to own a Nuclear Weapon? Obviously your rights are being trampled because there are no limits. Right? What functional purpose does such a weapon have in the hands of an absolute civilian? I look forward to your justifications.

Actually the framers did intend for the average Joe to have armories. James Madison in his letter to William Bradford confirms that mans right to own a cannon (Madison wrote the bill of rights). Further you say that only law enforcement and the military should have these weapons. The good news is Madison agrees with you, but only in principle. The 2nd amendment applies to the militia, but the militia (who is law enforcement and military at once) is every adult capable of bearing arms. So you know everyone. Early gun control laws actually were about requiring ownership of a gun or that it was in working condition.

Nuclear weapons are strategic weapons, they only work against other nation states, the militia is the vehicle of preserving freedom, it has no need of a weapon that's only use is as a threat of mutual annihilation.

jay1723
jay1723

Correct according to the supreme court in US v Miller Americans have the right to weapons "in common use" for use in the Militia which now would be assault RIFLES, which as you know are automatic weapons .

streiff_is_a_moron
streiff_is_a_moron

@johah Oh lordy - you and your dreams of a possible rogue US Government. If the Gov't went rogue(or another nation attacked), I guarantee you wouldn't be able to do anything about it, despite your Call of Duty Fantasies. Feel free to run headlong into the bullets when "shit goes down". I won't even blink an eye, I'll live to fight another day and I will survive. Unlike your dumb ass. Most hilariously, the only President in history of this country where this could even be a remote possibility is your very own Boyfriend In Chief Dotard Trump. Coincidentally, the one thing that would absolutely prevent any of your fantasies from ever coming true would be a united and loving nation instead of the country of hate and division Trump has created. Far worse than even Obama(and remember how much we feared him?). Your ridiculous fears make this country less safe and frankly endanger MY life. END OF DISCUSSION.

@JakeWagner - If the police are so gosh darn worthless with their weapons, why are so many innocent people being killed by an officer with a gun? If police are so gosh darn worthless with their weapons, why even have police? Why don't we just put your ass in charge of shooting first and asking questions later? I'd be willing to bet my life if you pick 10 average gun owners(Average meaning the kind of moron who just owns a gun, maybe stores it in a dresser drawer and probably doesn't actually go to the range more than a few times a year - aka part of the "well regulated militia") and 10 police officers, the police officers WILL put more rounds in a target that's threatening me.

Jonah_Kyle
Jonah_Kyle

Let's cut to the 2nd Amendment Chase:

Firearms in the hands of private citizens is the last bastion of defense against tyranny. This is specfic to the entire reason that the 2nd Amendment was created, and not without coincidence that it exists directly after the 1st amendment. The existence of many high-powered weapons in many people's hands negates the likelihood that an oppressive force, including a rogue US Government, can seize the power from the people endowed in the Constitution.

Yes, the US military can whip the bejesus out of US citizens in an initial battle. But to drill down to the man-to-man level, no governmental force has the ability to systematically wipe out US citizens. And the US Military has embedded friends and families among the citizenry, and coupled with an oath to the Constitution, the US Military cannot easily take the country IF the citizenry is sufficiently and effectively armed.

Remember: The goal of ALL progressive movements is to KILL you, the non-progressive. You know the drill. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Amin, et al. Hundreds of millions of lives directly executed. Billions of lives directly and negatively affected. So without Americans without high-powered rifles, the 2nd Amendment has been broken. "You don't need ten bullets to kill a deer... you need them to protect your life and your family!"

So anyone using the term "assault weapon" or "assault rifle"... You are advocating for my death. No dice. END OF DISCUSSION.

Stories