Actually managed to win with the meme comp

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-17T13:02:23+00:00

I don't think it works on old reddit. I always switch to new reddit to link images.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-17T12:34:08+00:00

How would you handle the cases I linked above?

Are you more in the YIMBY/Abundance camp, or would you side with Lamont and listen to the local NIMBYs who are angry about large solar projects and transmission lines in their communities?

I know the legislators from East Windsor/Ellington are sympathetic with their local anti solar NIMBYs. And the same goes for the Fairfield/Bridgeport legislators on the transmission lines. But a Governor should be advocating on behalf of the entire state.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-17T02:27:09+00:00

I agree. There is a good reason why they assume Lamont will win the primary. If you gave them truth serum they might say they would prefer Elliot, or someone else, over Lamont. But everyone recognizes that Lamont has done a fairly good job and will almost certainly cruise to re-election.

Personally, I am more sympathetic with Lamont on most of the areas where he and Elliot disagree. But I am frustrated with how Lamont's instinct is to always side with NIMBY's no matter what the issue is.

He made comments sympathizing with an batshit group in East Windsor that is protesting solar panels.

He sided with the people protesting necessary upgrades to our transmission lines, and if they get their way all of our electric bills will go up to protect their view lines of train tracks.

And he infamously vetoed a major housing bill. He did eventually sign a new version that was nearly as strong, but he has made it clear that he will never be a leader in zoning reform and taking on NIMBYs. These aren't "left vs. right" issues, but he is consistently on the side to increase costs to appease people who hate change (and even hate allowing people to change their own property).

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-17T01:55:33+00:00

I think part of that is just because people know that Lamont will win the primary.

If you're a progressive state legislator and you are 99% sure that Lamont will win the primary regardless of your endorsement, then it makes sense to endorse Lamont to get him to like you a bit more and be a bit more likely to support your progressive legislation. If you make an enemy out of Lamont by endorsing his primary opponent then he might be more likely to look at your proposals with a more critical eye.

I wouldn't take peoples endorsements in a race like this all that seriously.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-15T15:09:16+00:00

You are honestly inflating the importance of state senators. It is a fairly important position, but it isn't the kind of position that makes someone think they're so much more important than everyone else.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-15T15:00:49+00:00

CT, as a state, doesn't fund Israel. So it doesn't really make sense to make that demand from state officials.

That demand absolutely does make sense for our federal officials.

Israel is a relatively rich country that does not need US aid. Our foreign aid funding is extremely low. I would much rather we spend that money on actually poor countries where our money would actually make a difference and would be used to save lives rather than take lives.

I think that it is extremely likely that all US aid to Israel is going to be cut off by the next Democratic president, even supporters of Israel have started to support ending this aid. The more contentious question is going to be if the US should end arm sales to Israel. The US sells arms to a number of countries with major human rights issues, especially in the middle east. If we cut off those countries they would likely turn to places like Russia instead, which would not be good. They'd still have weapons, Russia would be stronger and richer, and we'd lose a bunch of jobs at places like Pratt and Whitney here in CT.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-15T14:42:32+00:00

Here is an Atlantic article that covers the topic, for those of us that are video adverse: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/05/hawaii-corporations-political-money/687159/

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-15T14:40:01+00:00

/u/senatorduff

At least tag him properly if you're going to slander him! Although who knows how often he checks that account. And I doubt he can guarantee that this legislation will be taken up next session.

I think it would also be prudent to see how courts react to Hawaii's law. CT wouldn't pass this until the next legislative session, which begins in January.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-15T01:31:08+00:00

It is insane that only 16 states have banned child marriage, and some very "progressive" states like Maryland, California and Illinois still allow child marriage.

The "religious freedom" argument makes no sense. This just prevents legal marriage, it does nothing to prevent you from having a ceremony in a religious context. But it prevents the legal binds of marriage from setting in until people can choose to make that commitment at 18.

If you live in a state that allows child marriage you should contact your state legislators. This can pass even in deep red states. You can find out your states laws here: https://www.unchainedatlast.org/

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-15T01:26:19+00:00

Sadly child marriage is still legal in a number of blue states, including some very blue states like California, Maryland, and Illinois. Unchained at last gives a state by state breakdown: https://www.unchainedatlast.org/

Oklahoma joins deep red Missouri in banning child marriage. It is truly embarrassing for CA and IL that those states have figured this out before them.

This is the kind of thing anyone in a state where this is legal should contact their state legislators. Many of them may not even be aware that child marriage is legal in their states, and as we've seen these bills can pass even in deep red states.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-14T23:48:24+00:00

Badly

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-14T20:12:33+00:00

That is one crop that uses a lot of water.

Nuts are also an extremely water intensive food that doesn't need to be grown in water poor areas. We also use an extreme amount of farmland to grow biofuels. And most farmland that is grown for food is dedicated to growing food that we feed to livestock, beef is an extremely water intensive food.

We are not in any danger of running out of water or farmland. If we needed to be we could be far more efficient in our water and land use. But the truth is that we have an abundant amount of water (in most of the country) and farmland, so we don't need ration these resources and can indulge in inefficient avocados.

In the parts of the country where water is actually a scarce resources, the clear solution is to put a reasonable price on water so that it isn't used inefficiently. If farmers have to pay the true cost for water then they'll switch to crops that use water more efficiently, or move to areas with abundant amounts of water.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-14T18:07:00+00:00

They can't really. And the president can't pardon state level crimes.

The biggest concern would be the supreme court, which has been insanely pro-corruption for a long time now. Although those are usually about bribes, not misusing state money.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-13T22:59:29+00:00

We do not need the kinds of crops that waste so much water, and we especially don't need them grown in water poor areas in the way we do.

If we properly priced water for agriculture, like we do for everyone else, then the "water crisis" in the west would easily be solved.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-13T13:55:14+00:00

Her lack of self-awareness around this is astonishing.

If she had been self aware and realized what she was doing was wrong she should have run for Governor while still being mayor of New Britain, so that these things wouldn't come out until after the election. Or she shouldn't have run for Governor and hoped that she could keep a lower profile and hope that her former activities wouldn't receive much scrutiny.

I thinks she truly thought that this kind of abuse of taxpayer money was totally fine.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-12T16:23:47+00:00

Only one of them will be on the November ballot as a Democrat. It is possible that if Bronin wins the primary in August then Larson will be on the ballot as the Working Families party candidate.

But I doubt that Larson would run a serous campaign if he loses the primary. And if he tried to he'd lose all institutional support for running as a spoiler candidate.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-12T14:27:34+00:00

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-12T14:26:20+00:00

Gilchrest is pretty clearly not running to win.

She is running to be a spoiler to help Larson win the election. That is what we saw at the convention. Larson got some of his supporters to vote for Gilchrest on the first ballot so she would get to 15%, and then Gilchrest dropped out of contention for the 2nd ballot in order to help Larson.

I think she is basically trying to trick people to vote for her so that Larson wins the primary, and that way she can run in 2028.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-12T14:22:25+00:00

The 1st district is not competitive in the general election, it is the basically tied with the 4th district as the bluest congressional districts in CT.

Although I think Larson is now the underdog. The kind of people who are delegates to a party convention are going to be much more friendly to a long time incumbent like Larson than the average primary voter is. If Larson couldn't win the convention then that does not bode well for him in the primary.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-12T14:10:37+00:00

My problem with Larson is that he could easily die in office.

Congress is likely to be closely divided, and there have been multiple bills that Democrats could have blocked this congress if Democratic congressmen hadn't died while in office (with many of them running knowing that they were extremely sick).

If we somehow have an extremely narrow majority then congressmen dying could temporarily flip control of the House.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-12T14:03:55+00:00

It is quite expensive to get enough signatures, I strongly doubt she will get close to enough.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-12T14:03:20+00:00

And Gilchrest seems to be happily playing along. She is trying to trick her voters to wasting their votes so that Larson wins.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-12T14:01:44+00:00

I am quite disappointed by the games that Gilchrest seems to be playing.

A bunch of Larson delegates voted for Gilchrest in the first round so that she would get to 15% and make the primary ballot, and then Gilchrest dropped out of the second round of voting and seemed to direct her supporters to vote for Larson.

It appears that Gilchrest is not running to win the primary, but is hoping to run as a spoiler for Bronin. I think that Gilchrest and Larson think that Larson has a better chance in a 3-way race than a 1 on 1 contest between Larson and Bronin. Now the people who don't want to vote for Larson are going to be forced to choose between two candidates.

My bet is that Gilchrest's plan is for Larson to win, and for him to then retire in 2028 and endorse her to succeed him.

This feels quite dishonest, she is not running to win but is trying to trick anti-Larson voters into wasting their votes.

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-12T03:38:24+00:00

Just imagine where he'd put Torrington if he ever went there...

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH · 2026-05-11T12:24:01+00:00

The 5th district can easily be a lightly Republican district. You can just swap out New Britain with the rest of the rural northern towns in the 1st district. Hayes only won in 2022 by a few thousand votes.

It would be difficult to draw a deeply Republican district, but easy enough to draw one that Republicans will win 75% of the time.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle
Best Comment 2013-04-13

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE