Comments
F__kCustomers t1_iy7gzgy wrote
Where is US Senator Blumenthal?
Where are the chicken wing State Senators?!
- Looney, Duff, Anwar, Bradley, Miller, McCrory, Moore, Abrams, Cabrera, Cassano, Cohen, Flexer, Fonfara, Hartley, Haskell, Kushner, Lopes, Maroney, Needleman, Osten, Slap, Winfield
Dems hold the majority. We pay each Red and Blue person 28K a year to pass laws particularly to help CT families. That’s your job. To pass laws that help us. If CT citizens want a law stating we can throw water balloons at State Senators faces, then you will pass the bill. You have no opinion. As a matter of fact, CT citizens need the power to throw balloons filled with water at you anywhere you are.
Income taxes were supposed to be temporary when the green light was given in the 80’s. Here we are 30+ years later with “temporary taxes”. I was still a child during this temporary time.
- You are in our pockets. Do what we tell you to do. The same goes for our dirtbag mayors. I don’t understand why we vote for these people. They do nothing.
CT citizens have complained for donkey years about these two vampire companies. They have sucked enough wealth from taxpayers.
CT taxpayers have stated for years taxes are too high (property, car, sales) and we see no benefits other than shit.
Pass a law forcing Eversource and UI to eat the difference until Natural Gas prices decrease. They will survive.
Taxpayers across the US are fed up. TBH, it wouldn’t surprise me if they start humiliating Politicians like that Black Mirror episode “The National Anthem” where Prime Minister Callow must have relations with a pig on TV.
It’s pretty obvious Vladimir Putin is using this war to frustrate consumers and taxpayers of countries that import a good chunk of Natural Gas and Oil in a bid to destabilize states and nations. Duh motherf****. From the Federal to the State to the Local, you bumbling fools are just allowing it.
- Families will freeze because turning off the heat is the only thing to do.
- Pipes will freeze damaging homes. Landlords better watch out! You are now paying the heating bill to keep your pipes warm.
- Gas (And Diesel is out of control) is still expensive even with the gas tax holiday.
The irony is Petroleum products from Russia are being sent to other countries where a new name is slapped on the container and the US still buys it. Prices magically remain high despite this. It seems like a variety of people are extorting and calling it inflation.
- BTW, Lamont “worked hard with Eversource” to get you a $10 bill credit. Here are your 🥜
Lamont and Eversource help working families with a credit for January 1st rate hikes.
The only way to stop this nonsense:
-
CT families purchase majority stock in Eversource and force it into submission.
-
We buy enough stock that dividends cancel out the electric bill.
-
Every single family home gets a Solar roof and two storage batteries. Then setup another panel and shut off the one for the utility killing it for good.
-
Let me choose how my taxes (property, car, sales, use) get spent. I’d like to use it subsidize my electric bills, repave my street, and fix the potholed roads in my area since you schmucks obviously don’t want to.
pridkett t1_iy81wa7 wrote
>* CT families purchase majority stock in Eversource and force it into submission. > >* We buy enough stock that dividends cancel out the electric bill.
That doesn't work from a math perspective. Eversource has a market cap of $28.46 billion. There are 3.6 million people in Connecticut. A controlling stake (50% + 1 share) would require every man, woman, and child to purchase $3722 of Eversource - and that's before the price starts to go up as people realize they can sell for more.
Eversource currently pays a dividend of $0.6375/share/quarter - or $2.55/yr for a little over a 3% yield. For the math on the dividends to work out they would need to collect 97% of their revenue from sources other than home electricity.
> * Every single family home gets a Solar roof and two storage batteries. Then setup another panel and shut off the one for the utility killing it for good.
The economics on this are staggering. For panels and three Powerwalls, that don't even cover all of the electric needs in my house, especially during the winter, I paid $32,000ish before incentives in 2020. Prices have gone up since then. A solar roof is even more expensive. Plus the replacement cost of batteries. Even I admit that financially it didn't make sense for me to Powerwalls, but they're cool toys and I don't like losing power.
This plan, even if you could get enough panels and installers, and enough people had good roofs, would be incredibly expensive. There are about 1.5 million residential homes in Connecticut of which 1.3 million are occupied and 900,000 are owner occupied - I'm leaving out apartments because their math gets difficult. At $30,000 a house for just the owner occupied houses, we're at $27bn, which is, purely coincidentally, the market cap of Eversource. And such a plan does NOTHING to help out renters who are often in need of more help because of generally lesser quality housing stock. In fact it would almost certainly hurt them as individual solar deployments typically have a net negative externality on the grid because their spikier demand.
krugo t1_iy8vdv3 wrote
$2.55/year per $80 share. There are other considerations, but if your Eversource bill is $100/mo, or $1200/year, you can somewhat account for your annual bill with a meager 470.59 shares, or a cool $37,647 investment. NBD.
F__kCustomers t1_iy82xml wrote
-
We’ve already paid more than 27 billion to over the last 20 years. I am pretty sure if you gave the ability for homes to power themselves, tax payers would line up. The property taxes we pay could have given every a Solar Roof years ago. Instead we got these Solar scams.
-
The goal is control Eversource with stock buys and it doesn’t have to be every one. As long as they are told to help families, not hurt them.
-
There are plenty of other dividend paying stocks. At this point, that seems to be the only way to offset the cost of this nonsense. You buy enough shares so it pays for the electric bill.
They have no interest is helping, curbing spending, being honest, defending CT citizens, and just saying no.
cryptocratic7 t1_iy7nqr9 wrote
I hope they continue to raise rates. And i hope the people in this sub that continue to defend the politicians of CT get screwed so you finally learn the lesson.
Red and blue dont care about you. You need to stop giving them your vote, your thoughts and your money. The moment you realize you are not represented, thats when you wake up.
The people that defend lamont and his crew are about to learn a good lesson. You need to fire them all, the reds too. Career politicians do not work for you, they work for eversource and corporations.
Pinkumb t1_iy86yi2 wrote
Ah yes, nihilism. Where nothing gets better but at least you've soothed your ego by having your perpetual negativity validated. Cringe post. You should feel embarrassed.
BeadyEyedThieves t1_iy8gqdt wrote
Yes, because regurgitating the MSM narrative verbatim on social media isn't an exercise in superficial validation and accomplishes so much.
At least this person isn't childish enough to think one side are the good guys and one side are the bad guys. They both rape this country endlessly of our hard earned tax dollars, one group just does it with a smile and tells you it's for your own good.
cryptocratic7 t1_iy8i8yd wrote
Political representation is dead. Every election cycle we get bombarded by corporate funded campaigns that create an illusion of “candidates for the people”.
Stop giving them the time of day. Stop defending them. Both sides sucks and they care only for their corporate masters.
WhittlingDan t1_iya4djq wrote
Other sides suck I will agree however they are not the same, far from it. If people want more options including (viable) other parties we need to end First-past-the-post and replace it with something along the lines of ranked choice.
cryptocratic7 t1_iya63yo wrote
We need change.
We do not need more career politicians or cult followers
Pinkumb t1_iy8t38u wrote
Cynicism is not a virtue.
cryptocratic7 t1_iy8bqlh wrote
I hope you end up signing up for assistance to keep from freezing to death friend. Nothing but the best for CT natives that refuse to see the underlying problems of the state.
Pinkumb t1_iy8tbxq wrote
I hope someday you choose to stop being so miserable.
cryptocratic7 t1_iy932a4 wrote
Hope someday you read a book friend.
ParkingDouble8686 t1_iy8nu5k wrote
Yeah, fire everybody! Brilliant! Question. Whose charge? No one? You?
cryptocratic7 t1_iy952hc wrote
I know hard to grasp for you but if you look at the constitution, the government should be ran by the people, for the people. Not the corporations. So yes, fire them all, put term limits, stop corporate PACs and corporate level lobbying and make public servants serve the public and not private corporations.
WhittlingDan t1_iy9wf3x wrote
Yes but how?
enigma7x t1_iy8xgql wrote
Except the politicians passed a law allowing us to swap to any supplier for electricity we want without penalty. They armed us already with what we need to combat this. There have been multiple posts on the subreddit about it. You have leverage against eversource on the supply side because competition exists there.
cryptocratic7 t1_iy95jj3 wrote
The vast majority of people cant. Also have you read their contracts? What about the eversource delivery service?
We have a monopoly with make up to make it look like a free market (oh wow u get to choose ur source but get butt fucked with delivery and contract details/penalties).
I know there are people here who will defend their beloved politicians even if get thrown out of their homes. Good luck.
enigma7x t1_iy9gax9 wrote
With respect to eversource, anyone has access to alternative suppliers. It is illegal in Connecticut for there to be any punitive conditions on any contract or rate lock with a supplier - this is the law I'm referring to. I've read the contract, it mentions fees for breaking your lock for a different supplier "unless in the following states" where CT is listed because our Congress people did that for us. I am not worshipping anyone. I am stating a factual law on the books that they created to our benefit.
Eversource still owns delivery. Their rates are locked by law until 2024. This is what happens when you privatize a utility. If you are arguing for a state sponsored and run energy company, I wholeheartedly agree.
TrashPandaShire t1_iy7ry0b wrote
💯
Myotherside t1_iy7tk8h wrote
Everything you said is very idealistic and exactly the opposite of how things actually work. Just like most of civics class.
phutch54 t1_iy66eaz wrote
And no-one will challenge the criminals.People will die this winter if they raise prices 40 %.
Usedtoknowsomeone46 t1_iy687pz wrote
That's okay quarterly profit will go up.
splashattack t1_iy80lqt wrote
Late stage capitalism babyyy
This is what happens when you base society off of putting profit before people.
The good news is that it is only going to get worse for us working class people! Capitalists own both parties and therefore will do what is best for their interests, which directly harms the working class.
There is no war but class war.
buried_lede t1_iy6fl0l wrote
The only thing that could tick me off more than Eversource/Dereg/ISO-NE ( in that order) is if legislators go into those hearings underprepared and let Avangrid and Eversource run circles around them with mumbo jumbo about the difference in their energy pools etc.
Do not go to the hearing if you don’t know the facts and answers before you ask the questions.
Do Not ask how Munis do it if you do not know how munis do it!!!!!
Sen Duff- please note!
Call the munis before the hearings and find out. And get their opinions too about Eversource claims - they could have a lot of insight
mynameisnotshamus t1_iy7xljv wrote
We need some Katie porter types in there with graphs and charts
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy8e29z wrote
Yes let's pick someone from the state that charges the highest cost for electricity, to explain to the state with the second highest cost how to do better.
How about we get some electrical engineers, economists and supply chain specialists, hired by the state, to discuss this instead?
Edit: I'm not counting Hawaii since it is an island and the cost makes sense there
mynameisnotshamus t1_iy8q25j wrote
What CA charges has nothing to do with her effectiveness at calling out corporate greed, which she’s been better at than just about anyone in a Congress. And she does it in a direct and succinct, easy to understand and difficult to argue against manner. You can get information from the EEs, economists, supply chain people, etc. and put their information into easy to understand messages. You don’t need to be one of those people.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy8vani wrote
Has she gotten results, or just talked? I work in energy. I understand why our power generation and distribution is so messed up. I even worked at millstone for a while. It will take a decade of new production that involves large steam plants. Instead of discussing what we should use to boil the water, besides oil and natural gas, I see politicians waste time misrepresenting inflation and supply crunches. We could look into geothermal, tidal turbines or nuclear and we are busy debating how to keep aging natural gas plants alive while trying to get every household to buy crappy solar panels to make up for the ignorance. Eventually those plants are going to need to be retired, and it will take 10 years to replace them with something better.
Edit: we have a 2 billion dollar surplus in CT for the first time in a long time, we should invest in new sources of energy and not waste it on solar, and more natural gas plants because that surplus came from Covid policy and will not last.
mynameisnotshamus t1_iy9000c wrote
Your opinions seem valid but you’re missing the overall point of getting people in position to make changes be able to actually call out the bad actors, show evidence in a clear manner. One person alone can’t get results. You know that’s not how the political system works.
Here’s one of many examples of Katie Porters work. I’d love to see something similar done with Eversource - not that it would result in meaningful change, but I’d still like to see it.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy91x8l wrote
So I understand this video and why you like it. Here is my point, she could propose a bill tomorrow that allows the US to buy generic equivalents of the drugs these companies make, from Canada, Europe or elsewhere where they are significantly cheaper than the ones produced in the US. She has tunnel vision for the US pharmaceutical companies simply deciding to do the right thing.
This is similar to the problem with CT energy prices. We have tunnel vision for keeping all power plants natural gas power plants. So we are beholden to the price of natural gas. All we would need to do to break this, is switch to an efficient renewable or a power source that doesn't require a constant supply of fossil fuels, thereby creating a competing source that would force the gas power plants to drop prices to compete. That conversation isn't even happening.
Edit: basically most politicians are playing these companies games instead of writing their own rules.
mynameisnotshamus t1_iy94onh wrote
They need to do both though don’t they? Short term and long term goals. Focusing on renewable will not help lower current prices.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy97dij wrote
We already began production on a new natural gas plant, plans were approved in September 2021. We have extended the life of millstone for now, and eversource is raking in money it could use to upgrade the power lines and such, so we have the short term covered. Long term we are doing nothing but the same.
In addition, everyone talking about renewables in government is talking about wind and solar. Neither of those is practical on a large scale. I understand the concerns with nuclear, though I worked in nuclear and there at least 15 nuclear reactors in the Thames river at any one time, but beyond that, there are other large scale options that would drastically reduce our energy cost. The only down side is it would hurt the fossil fuel companies.
buried_lede t1_iy8q7nk wrote
Electrical engineers, maybe, but economists? What’s next, witchcraft? (Just kidding, sort of)
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy8vi75 wrote
Economists because they will determine what resources are about to become available and provide cheap alternatives to natural gas, coal and oil. They can determine under represented markets that CT could tap into, kinda the same as supply chains but more prospecting and looking to the future.
buried_lede t1_iy9h0gs wrote
He’s got the right idea. It wouldn’t hurt if someone pulled out a pointer and rolled out some charts. I do want this anatomy laid out in detail and accurately and not shallow. Tired of the regurgitated press releases explaining why rates are high. They are all full of shit.
Lobbyists at Ever-score - - you know what they are giving to legislators? Loungewear catalogs with the latest Black Friday prices
Myotherside t1_iy7repv wrote
Hanlon’s Razor is not applicable to politics.
dan2872 t1_iy6njir wrote
If you've seen the complaints on this sub before, you probably know that 1/2 - 2/3 of your electric bill is delivery. You may not know that that's only come about relatively recently, when about a decade ago the rules changed to allow you to choose your own energy supplier. Supply vs. Delivery has been established and presented as completely siloed pools that can't cross over. Supply is supposed to be passed-along, delivery is where the margins are (supposed-to-be, I don't see the books) made.
Now a global natural gas shortage has sent prices through the roof while we've been decommissioning nuclear plants and trying to move away from dirtier energy sources like coal. Investments are being made towards solar and wind, but the storage infrastructure has yet to catch up. So most of our electricity comes from natural gas, which has been getting more expensive already. It hit a tipping point with the war in Ukraine, with Europe seeking new gas sources and all the accompanying speculation. As a result, the supply rate is pretty much doubling, which will result in a 33 - 50% increase in our electric bills. Municipalities are in a similar boat with prices increasing but their contracts tend to be steadier and longer which means we're not seeing quite the same increase on the municipal front yet. However, compared to other states, especially in our region*, and globally, things aren't much different so maybe we're not being screwed worse than most other places.
I do wonder though, had the Utilities been mandated to diversify their energy sources instead of isolating the supply costs from the delivery and transmission, would we be in the same boat where we're being told they have no choice but to pass those costs along directly, or has the illusion of choice meant that profits will never be dug into when it comes to supply? I can't help but think that if supply wasn't isolated from the rest of the bill there'd be more wiggle room now. Instead, delivery/transmission rates already include the profit margin, and supply rates are supposedly "passed on". Effectively, the supply rate is insulated from any competition or loss and 'preventing' the Utilities from dipping into Delivery profits.
_
^*That ^said, ^Eversource ^owns/runs ^many ^of ^the ^electric ^grids ^for ^neighboring ^states
_
But also be cautious of the alternate suppliers. Some of them will likely be a better deal, but pay attention to contract lengths and termination fees. Gas and oil prices have started to fall. This could be short-term, and a 3-year lock could be great. However, if prices do drop significantly in the next few months, the supply rate very well may fall below whatever you get locked into. I have great skepticism that Eversource or UI will drop the rates, but I'm also highly skeptical of the number of companies who are advertising like crazy to lock you into an alternate supply rate for 3-years. Are they the benevolent angel we may hope for, or are they making a different wager?
Edit: ETFs are illegal (and has been for a bit), but it may take a billing cycle or two for any switch to take place. You won't necessarily be notified when your rate is set to change, like my Comcast bill, so make note and set a reminder!
PaulWalkerCGIFace t1_iy76gkx wrote
Have you checked for alternate suppliers? I couldn't find any cheaper than Eversource
dan2872 t1_iy7znn9 wrote
They're more than right now and cheaper than Jan 1st
Hitchhiker-Trillian t1_iy7ozq7 wrote
Literally every supplier listed for my zip on energize CT had cheaper rates than Eversource. Where are you looking?
thawkth t1_iy85s8q wrote
You need to think more than 30 days ahead…
Myotherside t1_iy7qymj wrote
Delete the profit incentive and you won’t have this problem. Your entire comment is basically “how do we chain up the coyote to keep it from trying to eat the chickens.” Or “how do I keep the snake from biting me”.
dan2872 t1_iy804pk wrote
Antivenom doesn't help much with boa constrictors.
I don't disagree with you, but there's no sign of that happening. My main point is the supply/delivery split itself effectively protects profits instead of the freedom of choice it supposedly provides, which has combined with everything else going on to jack the rates way up.
thawkth t1_iy85v5f wrote
There are no termination fees in CT nor are consumers locked into an energy supplier for any length of time.
dan2872 t1_iy86k58 wrote
Wasn't sure if they did away with them entirely or if it was vendor by vendor. But in that case, yeah just be vigilant - it can take about 2-3 months for supplier changes to kick in so in switching just be mindful of when rates change for both the utility and the alternate supplier.
thawkth t1_iy89kjk wrote
I completely agree. People need to be on top of this and pay attention.
We’re not talking about a few dollars a month here or there at this point - we’re talking about a lot of money.
enigma7x t1_iy8xrwc wrote
>However, if prices do drop significantly in the next few months, the supply rate very well may fall below whatever you get locked into. I have great skepticism that Eversource or UI will drop the rates, but I'm also highly skeptical of the number of companies who are advertising like crazy to lock you into an alternate supply rate for 3-years. Are they the benevolent angel we may hope for, or are they making a different wager?
It is against the law in the state of CT for them to hit you with any fees if you decide to switch to a different supplier during your rate lock. So, if the prices fall and a cheaper supplier than your current lock becomes available, you can jump over to that supplier. All the lock really does is protect you from the supplier randomly jacking the price for the duration of the lock.
buried_lede t1_iy70bnn wrote
Honestly, I think there is no excuse for Sen Needleman to be so uninformed in this area. He’s the chair of the Energy Committee. Nothing he said was wrong, but I expect someone in his position to know the subject thoroughly, to know all the problems with the ISO, to have at least a clue, through informed sources, what the generating plants are paying for fuel, who owns them and whether they are or are not subsidiaries with arms length relationships with supply and pipelines and whether they are gouging. He should know all of that. He should have big ideas rather than talking about pennies per kWh, he should be up on the Eversource sale of wind assets and should have been talking about it now for at least two months! (No one from the state has even mentioned it - it’s truly incredible!) And he should not be naive about infrastructure investment by Eversource - it’s a cash cow for utilities. ( Utilities can pass capital costs on to ratepayers but not operating costs, and it’s lucrative, so they are motivated always to propose grid improvements. Legislators have to have independent experts to tell them what’s bogus and what’s not) He serves as First selectman jn Essex too- is he spread too thin? I don’t know - I do know he’s not bringing much to the table on energy matters.
There should be subpoenas to the suppliers and Eversource for testimony and all documents related to price negotiations, including emails, receipts from lunch meetings, phone logs, all of it. If they meet for lunch, I want to know what they ate, where they ate, how long they were parked there, who was there and what was said. I want to know every step of their process, how they do it and how chummy or arms length it is. I want to know what, if any, consequences the price ends up having on gas company profits for both utilities’ gas subsidiaries - Avangrid and Eversource also own gas cos. Why hasn’t the legislature been on top of if?
Myotherside t1_iy7qc1i wrote
Oh my sweet summer child, everything is exactly how it was meant to be. We are just captured consumers with the illusion of democratic control.
TrashPandaShire t1_iy7rzjh wrote
💯
BuddhaBizZ t1_iy8h1qr wrote
Local politics is dirtier than national because no one looks
BeadyEyedThieves t1_iy8fias wrote
Don't worry guys, Bob Duff is on the case! He's going to send a strongly worded letter begging for them to be nicer. It won't accomplish anything, however he did post a photo of himself advocating for minorities, so quite honestly he's done all he's can.
I'm sure the new green energy policies will be totally off limits though! It's not like it's a multi-trillion dollar market that we're legislating our participation into!
gregra193 t1_iy99fi9 wrote
My local State Senator IS Eversource. A Corporate Attorney for them, GOP, hasn’t passed a bill (he wrote) in 30 years. Re-elected with 57% support.
I voted against him, guessing his district voted for him just because of party—he’s literally done nothing since 1993.
Prize_Pressure1467 t1_iy9do9c wrote
Eversource should stop paying dividends and stop giving out bonuses to executives to help offset the price increase. They have to make a profit, I get that, but they should cut their costs also.
AutoModerator t1_iy9doby wrote
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because you do not meet the required karma threshold.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iya7mxn wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_iya7mzk wrote
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because you do not meet the required karma threshold.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
jlevnhv t1_iy84ibz wrote
You know what would help? If we had a full-time CT Legislature.
I believe one Rep State Senator also moonlights for Eversource, and one of the Dems' full-time job is with the state unions.
As long as these people literally work for the companies and organizations they are supposed to legislate, they will have an innate conflict of interest.
And as long as being a state senator keeps you impoverished, you will inherently be motivated to take political jobs.
gatogrande t1_iy8spvu wrote
Hard fuking no...politics was never intended to be a profession, it must be made up of people versed in their own careers to best understand the issues of the people they represent. Suckling at the public teet merely breeds unethicality as evidenced in DC every damn day
WhittlingDan t1_iya3fw0 wrote
Except being part time makes it very difficult for anyone other than the wealthy to have the time to get involved in politics. Part time is done intentionally so that it makes it harder for working class and poor to hold a position.
charcoalcheeseburger t1_iy9mu4f wrote
Where’d they get the money for that? A charge on our energy bills?
PTunia t1_iy9zol9 wrote
Lobbying should be a crime. It's nothing more than a "legal bribe". The same goes for Washington. Period.
SpiderMuse t1_iy8aq1x wrote
They got an excellent return on their investment too. I wouldn't be surprised if Eversource is the most profitable electricity supplier in the country, in proportion to state size.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy8coz3 wrote
I wonder if all those rate hikes were their lobby money.
tdigren t1_iy6irlv wrote
Yet we voted them in again!
Ikea_Man t1_iy6njj2 wrote
what would the republican candidates have done, exactly?
you don't think they would take the money from eversource? LOL give me a break
Myotherside t1_iy7r0ra wrote
The only thing dumber than believing in Democrats is believing Republicans are better.
tdigren t1_iy6r91i wrote
It’s a lot like the lottery. You can’t win if you don’t play.
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy6nhm0 wrote
Fair enough. At least the crooks we voted in aren't also fascists.
spmahn t1_iy7x45c wrote
Which members of the CT GOP are fascists exactly?
Edit: How about people actually answer the question before hitting the downvote button?
SippieCup t1_iy83a9a wrote
Dominic Rapini
spmahn t1_iy8re11 wrote
Ok, great, you’ve identified a total of one person with some problematic views who isn’t actually a politician, received virtually zero support from any specific members of the GOP in Connecticut, and lost by double digits.
SippieCup t1_iy8sxrg wrote
Bruh, he's third on the list.
He received quite a bit of support from the GOP in Connecticut.
And he lost by double digits because he is a fucking fascist.
Besides, there are still more people like that in CT politics. Fred Camillo is another example off the top of my head.
Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to.
spmahn t1_iy8w9fa wrote
What political office has Dominic Rapini ever held? You realize that literally anyone can register for a political party and run for office as a member of that party, no? Which specific politicians endorsed or supported him? Yeah, no shit, a few town committees endorsed the entire slate of Republican candidates on the ballot, and the CT GOP again lists the entire slate of candidates on their website, but who in this state has actually pledge support for him? Nobody.
What fascist views does Fred Camillo hold.
SippieCup t1_iy8wfn6 wrote
You seem upset that you are support fascists.
I have a solution to solve this for you. Don't vote GOP.
spmahn t1_iy8x22d wrote
As a matter of fact I don’t support fascists, you just seem quite keen on applying pejorative labels without actually being able to back it up with evidence.
SippieCup t1_iy8x5w6 wrote
You agreed with me that the 3rd person on the last ticket was a fascist. I don't need to prove my point any more.
spmahn t1_iy8xzra wrote
So because one person who has chosen to associate himself with a group despite no evidence of that group actually wanting to be associated with that person, that by default defines the entire organization? I’d love to hear your views on other groups of people with problematic members, I’m sure they are lovely and not in any way bigoted or narrow minded. If you’re looking for me, I’ll be over here with the people who can actually form nuanced opinions without painting everything black and white.
SippieCup t1_iy8zd1k wrote
If you hang out with nazis long enough, you get associated with nazis.
>So because one person who has chosen to associate himself with a group despite no evidence of that group actually wanting to be associated with that person, that by default defines the entire organization?
They did give him 25k in 2021. Think they will give me $50k if they don't want to be associated with me?
> I’d love to hear your views on other groups of people with problematic members, I’m sure they are lovely and not in any way bigoted or narrow minded.
Sure. Lets talk about Al Franken.
As soon as people heard that he may have sexually harassed someone, he was ostracized out of the democratic party, resigned from his seat to the detriment of the groups goals, and was told to fuck off entirely.
Now lets look at some republican sexual crimes... Matt Gaetz, Madison Cawthorn, Roy Moore, Jim Jordan, Donald Trump.
Wow imagine that, all of them are still strongly supported by the GOP..
So its not the actions of one person that defines the entire organization. The the actions of the organization that continues support for that person which defines them.
You can have nuanced opinions all you want, but if you are hiding behind "nuance" in order to protect your republican ideals, you are really just being dishonest to yourself. You are still supporting these awful ideologies by proxy, even if you try to rationalize it as "oh but those aren't my views, I just voted for his team."
spmahn t1_iy90axu wrote
Way to move the goalpost there buddy. Lets try this one last time, which Republican politicians in Connecticut are fascists? And don’t tell me that they are all fascists simply by association, this country runs on a two party system where you ostensibly have to be associated with one party or the other to be elected, yes in a perfect world there would be a separate group of politicians who could call themselves some other name, but we don’t live in Shangri-La, our electoral system doesn’t work that way.
SippieCup t1_iy90elg wrote
Dominic Rapini.
spmahn t1_iy90xdo wrote
He’s not a politician! He has never held political office. Just because someone defines themselves as being a particular thing does not inherently make it so. If I apply for a job as a doctor in a hospital, does that make me a doctor?
SippieCup t1_iy917qw wrote
He was selected to run by the GOP, Do you not know what a GOP ticket is?
If they didn't want him, he could run as an independent. its not impossible, just hard.
Just because the nazis lost WWII, doesn't mean they aren't nazis anymore.
spmahn t1_iy91o0a wrote
So if I fill out a form to run for city council, that act in and of itself makes me a politician? Huh, I guess I can declare myself to be anything I want and that makes it so. I want to be Pope.
SippieCup t1_iy93xaj wrote
Sure bud.
WhittlingDan t1_iyaav0w wrote
If no one else runs and almost all the Republicans voted for you, to within a couple percent of Bobs total I would say that would count as support.
WhittlingDan t1_iyaamdf wrote
He got almost all the votes that Bob did. He may have lost but the Republicans voted for him. Less than a 50k different between The total number of votes for him and total for Bob.
spmahn t1_iyadx8z wrote
It’s almost as though a lot of people might just vote the party line and not do a whole lot of research on candidates, particularly for positions like State Treasurer whose responsibilities might be a bit esoteric to the average voter.
WhittlingDan t1_iya5f9i wrote
They didn't run anyone in his place, they accepted him.
Dominic Rapini got over 40% of the vote totaling 531,918. That's a lot of people supporting him, seems like almost all of the Republicans voted for him as Bob got 43%. So the party chose to support him by not running anyone else and the constituents voting for him.
spmahn t1_iya810u wrote
They don’t exactly get a choice who wins the primary, and there may not have been anyone else qualified / interested in running. It isn’t as though it was a race that was likely to be won by a Republican.
WhittlingDan t1_iya54cr wrote
And get a load of this, right from his description under his picture:
"...In 2018, Dominic ran unsuccessfully for US Senate as a first-time candidate. On election night, Dominic was dismayed by stories of wet ballots, missing ballots, magically appearing ballots, and late floods of election day registrations pushing poll closings far past the state-mandated 8:00 pm deadline, followed by very late reporting of results from our major cities. All of which fueled suspicion and mistrust of the results. A principled conservative, Dominic Rapini will continue his fight for election integrity as Connecticut’s next Secretary of the State."
Nothing like announcing your election denial.
/u/spmahn Did Trump lose the last election? Do we have problems with voter fraud and cheating in Connecticut? The rest of the Country? If so, what and wby?
spmahn t1_iya85sa wrote
Yes he did and no we don’t. Rapini is a loon, we’ve established this
Spooky2000 t1_iy7x1l5 wrote
>fascists
Just keep throwing that out there.. Like you have any fucking clue what it means..
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy866is wrote
I have a PhD in political science from UConn. I would say I have a passing familiarity with what fascism is, yes.
LaChanceM t1_iy8fd9i wrote
Useless degree from a useless school that doesn’t even take our in state students anymore
Spooky2000 t1_iy8zm7z wrote
So you know what you are saying is bullshit and keep saying it anyway.. Thanks for playing.
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy90wiw wrote
Honest question: how does it feel to be a clown?
Spooky2000 t1_iy915cn wrote
Check the mirror and find out.
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy91z26 wrote
lol, very clever. I like the middle-school 'I'm rubber and you're glue' kind of response here, it's very fitting of the typical conservative educational level
Spooky2000 t1_iy94lxv wrote
You called me a clown you dipshit. Get the fuck out..
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy957wk wrote
Awww, did I hurt your feelings?
Spooky2000 t1_iya1ukg wrote
Pointing out that you started the childish name calling is somehow hurting my feelings? Hey, I get it, you had no actual answer so just called me names like it would win you an argument. Have fun with that..
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iya363g wrote
You know what, I bet if you go to r/conservative and cry there about how the liberal hurt your snowflake feelings, you’ll get a better response
Dank_Birds_ t1_iy6naiq wrote
People in CT can’t get past local and state republicans in CT being different than some conservative federal house member in Texas. They vote for democrats because orange man bad and election denier wack job in Arizona bad. May help to make both sides work for a vote rather than handing it to whatever connected democrat is in line next.
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy6x1yp wrote
I get what you're saying, but the problem is that local Republicans won't go against the party. They won't stand up to the insanity. Instead, they act and function as one, and thereby enable the crazies in their own party. So some CT Republican may well be an outstanding individual who would work hard for his constituents, he won't do anything but enable the nutters in his own party. Therefore, how can you vote for them, knowing that your vote will get translated to a tacit approval of the extremes in the party?
spmahn t1_iy7xc07 wrote
> local Republicans won't go against the party
Why would your local politicians spend any time at all on national issues which have literally no impact on what they’re going to do in Hartford?
Myotherside t1_iy7r8tf wrote
Politics is mostly fake, parties are just there to provide capital and ballot access to chosen insiders and block outsiders from successfully participating in politics.
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy7utaw wrote
It’s a shame that so many like you share this belief. Politics is absolutely anything but fake—just ask the millions of women who can’t get abortions any longer and are being forced to carry to term their rapists’ child, or brain dead fetuses, or their father’s/brother’s/other relative’s child.
Myotherside t1_iyb5o26 wrote
Under a democratic president and in many states new abortion laws were signed into law by democratic governors. And when it comes to other critically important issues they are totally useless. Just give me a break with the political apologetics. Most of these political narratives are just that: narratives.
Dank_Birds_ t1_iy7z2nx wrote
Politics is real. The only reason this is an issue in conservative states is because the democrats failed to see through their prior promises. They knew if roe was ever overturned or challenged that it would be great politically so they did nothing. It’s an issue that will get a moderate women to vote democrat. That’s why it was never a legislative priority at the federal level when Obama and Joe could’ve secured it. The vast majority of America is fine with common sense abortion laws. The issue again is liberal democrats that say dumb things that get repeated on Fox News… like allowing elective late stage abortion for no medical purpose.
WhittlingDan t1_iyad2av wrote
What are common sense abortion laws?
Spooky2000 t1_iy7xg1f wrote
Less than 1% of all abortions are from rape or incest. But go on...
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy87qo6 wrote
This comes from a study done in 1987, where 1900 women were surveyed. It’s hardly representative of today’s statistics. But even if it were, 1% (using 1987 numbers…nearly 40 years out of date) represents something like 16,000 women per year. So you’d be okay with 16,000 women each year being forced to give birth to their rapists’ child?
WhittlingDan t1_iyac869 wrote
They painted themselves in the corner on this. If they want to claim abortion is murder they can't very well claim that it doesn't count just because the father was/is a rapist/cousin...
I'm Pro-choice. If they claim any exception but medical is ok then they are contradicting their abortion is murder claim. So I wonder what part they are lying about? Reminds me of when I heard Roe Vs Wade was settled, by a Republican, only to overturn it.
Spooky2000 t1_iy885o0 wrote
>So you’d be okay with 16,000 women each year being forced to give birth to their rapists’ child?
No, I'm not. But almost every state still has exceptions for these things along with the health of the mother.
If democrats really cared, they would have codified abortion sometime in the last 50 years, but they don't. They just want to use it as a political tool.
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy88z4d wrote
I don’t think it’s that simple. Have a read https://19thnews.org/2022/01/congress-codify-abortion-roe/
WhittlingDan t1_iyacxpo wrote
So are you saying your ok with abortion for rape/incest and mothers health but nothing else?
Do you not believe abortion is murder? How does who the father is change that? Either you believe its murder or it isnt?
Im pro choice and consistent or should I say pro-choice and honest?
Dank_Birds_ t1_iy80esd wrote
That’s no different than voting democrat over and over again securing the looney left. No ultra conservative Republican could win a seat in CT so I don’t understand your concern. CT is just an auto win for whatever person is on the democratic ticket. These people are typically just connected friends of prior politicians that moved up or out. In a two party system CT would be better off swinging back and forth to ensure neither extreme gets a hold they use for personal gain. Many CT Dems are just trying to get to DC the easy way.
Seegson-Synthetics t1_iy870ws wrote
You’re presenting a false equivalence, though. Just because the behavior appears similar (Democrats voting and acting as a single bloc, like the Republicans do) doesn’t mean they’re the same. If you have ten people who always agree the sky is blue and ten people who agree that it’s red, the side that insists the sky is red cannot point to their opposite group and say “See? They always vote together, just like us!” Well, of course they do, because it’s a fact (that the sky is blue). They’re definitely not behaving in the same way as the group that insists the sky is red, even though it might appear that way (all voting as a single bloc).
DarkDeSantis t1_iy844yh wrote
You guys need to start focusing on the bigger issues, like getting these darn guns off the bahaha, sorry, off the safest streets in the country hahahaha
Jawaka99 t1_iy6pl5v wrote
Could have done something about this last election but no, everyone just votes D down the line.
encab91 t1_iy7ewfm wrote
Of course. We should have voted in Republicans. Then we would get shittier roads, underfunded public services and an even bigger price hike! We missed a big opportunity here.
Myotherside t1_iy7qpyc wrote
You know that voting D or R is pretty much the same thing when it comes to regulating large monopolies, right?
Honestly we need to elect some straight up communists to push the state to seize the means of production and inject capital into green alternatives. Cover every roof with solar as a starting point.
Or elect satanists, I don’t care. But D or R is just a vote for a very marginal effective difference in leadership.
WhittlingDan t1_iya3udw wrote
The problem is first past the post elections. We need something different for example ranked voting. There are other variations but the current way almost guarantees no other parties have a chance in hell.
Kolzig33189 t1_iy60wyq wrote
They don’t even need to lobby CT politicians, there are way too many conflicts of interests between CT legislators and family members/in laws being high up in eversource.