1 1
brenthutch

State of the Union

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, jakee said:
4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, a schmoe whose ideas about obstructionism and procedural warfare you've just applauded - the very things that have contributed to the current state of a divisive and dysfunctional government.

Liar.

I applauded the ideas you listed which I think are the right thing to do.

Apologies. . .my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Coreece said:

Principles and virtue that are meaningless IF you just abandon them when they're needed the most.

Agreed.  However, new (and more effective) tactics to achieve those principles are not meaningless at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jakee said:

It’s the right thing to do. In fact, there is no defence for it not being a state that isn’t rooted in Republican dirty tricks. Same with California

Agreed...I think California should be a state...but they're doing their best not to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Agreed...I think California should be a state...but they're doing their best not to be.

By having the largest GDP in the US?

By having over 10 million more Americans than any other state?

By paying more federal taxes than any other state, so we can support the red welfare states?

I guess if we became a welfare state the right would start to support California.  Maybe that's an idea . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
47 minutes ago, billvon said:

By having the largest GDP in the US?

By having over 10 million more Americans than any other state?

By paying more federal taxes than any other state, so we can support the red welfare states?

I guess if we became a welfare state the right would start to support California.  Maybe that's an idea . . .

California should use the Trump presidency and the Republican Senate majority to jump ship from the US altogether. 

Trump's just about dumb enough to say OK to it ("#Let them protect their OWN border!! MAGA!" or something similar), and we've already seen the senate will go along with whatever he says. 

 

;)

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yoink said:

Trump's just about dumb enough to say OK to it ("#Let them protect their OWN border!! MAGA!" or something similar), and we've already seen the senate will go along with whatever he says. 

That would be fun to see!

"YES!  Commiefornia can GO!  See if I care!  Excellent!  Wait . . . they're still going to send us that quarter trillion dollars in taxes every year, right?  Because we sorta need that.  And they grow like 90% of the produce in the country.  They are still going to send us THAT, right?  I mean, what are we going to eat?  I know - MEAT!  Wait, where do they get all that cattle feed from?

No matter, we will still have plenty of foreign trade to compensate.  All that produce will come in through . . . hang on.  Well, if it comes through California, we can still get it.  Wait a minute.  They are instituting a TARIFF on us?  UNFAIR!  Only we can do that!  Right?"

Then he could buy Greenland again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jakee said:

And how does that affect your overall point. Reconsidering at all yet?

The whole thing about giving Reps a taste of their own medicine has proven to be too vague for meaningful discussion - there's just too much weasel room to pin them down on anything, so I'll just let it go.

As for "doing the right thing," fine.  It's just interesting that it only seems to comes up when the Dems are getting their asses handed to them.  Take the EC for example, they were bitching about it 20 years ago, but did they actually do anything bout it?  No.  They just bitch about it, bitch about Bush and bitch bitch bitch til they bitch enough to garner enough votes to get back in the game. And then once in power, do they do anything about it?  No, they hardly even mentioned the EC while Obama was in office, until he wasn't.

And now we're back to bitch bitch bitch, moan moan moan, woe is us, we're just too good of a people to make it in this dog eat dog realpolitik world.

And I know I give Dems a hard time, but it's only because I come from a working class family from Detroit, and am myself a Democrat at heart.  But have you been to Detroit?  Were you raised there?  It's  still like a  shithole 3rd world country.  50 years and the Dems haven't done anything - and I'm sick and tired of their fucking moral facade of liberal equality, hope and fairness just to garner votes from these people while remaining absolutely unbeholden to them. Big surprise given most Dems don't even identify as liberal, eh?

I mean the best thing to happen for middle class blacks during the Obama admin was the housing crisis that created a void of cheap housing in the suburbs for them to fill, while the poor were left behind with nothing - they even took away their unemployment benefits.  And even today any improvement is just the result of gentrification - nobody gives a shit.

Michigan is the demonstrably the most politically corrupt state in the country, most of which can be attributed to democrats - so when they say they want to play dirty, I fucking believe them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Coreece said:

The whole thing about giving Reps a taste of their own medicine has proven to be too vague for meaningful discussion - there's just too much weasel room to pin them down on anything, so I'll just let it go.

Liar. Everyone has told you eactly what they meant. You're just choosing not to believe it.

Quote

As for "doing the right thing," fine.  It's just interesting that it only seems to comes up when the Dems are getting their asses handed to them.  Take the EC for example, they were bitching about it 20 years ago, but did they actually do anything bout it?  No.  They just bitch about it, bitch about Bush and bitch bitch bitch til they bitch enough to garner enough votes to get back in the game. And then once in power, do they do anything about it?  No, they hardly even mentioned the EC while Obama was in office, until he wasn't.

Probably because it would take a Constitutional amendment to change, and that's functionally impossible unless the Rs decide to grow some principles. But that doesn't mean they have to stop talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
21 minutes ago, jakee said:

Liar.  Everyone has told you eactly what they meant.

Ya, after they've been called out on it and realized how hypocritical they'd be.

And cool it with the "liar" shit. . .as well with your deliberate and deceptive/selective quoting.

. . and do I get any apology for any of that?  No, of course not, because that's just the type of fucking guy that you are.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, jakee said:
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

The whole thing about giving Reps a taste of their own medicine has proven to be too vague for meaningful discussion - there's just too much weasel room to pin them down on anything, so I'll just let it go.

Liar. Everyone has told you eactly what they meant. You're just choosing not to believe it.

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Ya, after they've been called out on it and realized how hypocritical they'd be.

 

And just so you see how full of shit your your post is, here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

 

 

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, after they've been called out on it and realized how hypocritical they'd be.

No, after you accused them of meaning something they didn't.

Quote

And cool it with the "liar" shit. . .as well with your deliberate and deceptive/selective quoting.

. . and do I get any apology for any of that?  No, of course not, because that's just the type of fucking guy that you are.

Cool it with the lying then. Ball's in your court on that one, it's up to you to show what kind of guy you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Coreece said:

And just so you see how full of shit your your post is, here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

Yes, I saw that and yes, it's a perfect example of the hyperbole you're throwing around and the misleading assumptions you're making.

 

By the way, nothing to say about the substantive part of my post, and why EC college reform isn't happening? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 hours ago, jakee said:

Probably because it would take a Constitutional amendment to change, and that's functionally impossible unless the Rs decide to grow some principles. But that doesn't mean they have to stop talking about it.

Not necessarily. The Constitution just says the states cast votes in the EC. It does not dictate how the states arrive at those votes. There is a movement to fix that w/o an amendment:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/national-popular-vote/604861/

BTW: Maine & Nebraska already do something more enlightened that the winner-takes-the-whole-state nonsense.

Edited by ryoder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ryoder said:

Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

 

How else are you going to change that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jakee said:

Yes necessarily. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

 

How else are you going to change that?

If all the states would simply pass laws to assign EC votes proportionate to the popular vote, it would go a long, long way towards a fair(er) election.

Since it says "in such a manner as the Legislature there may direct", that would be well within the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, jakee said:

Yes necessarily. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

 

How else are you going to change that?

Did you read the article?

Once enough states have entered into the agreement to cover 270+ EC votes, each state assigns all of its EC votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. At this point the EC winner will be the popular winner, and the EC becomes nothing but a formality which confirms the popular vote.

Edited by ryoder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ryoder said:

Once enough states have entered into the agreement to cover 270+ EC votes, each state assigns all of its EC votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote.

The obvious problem with that is simply that there is no official nationwide popular vote. Who will certify the results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

The obvious problem with that is simply that there is no official nationwide popular vote. Who will certify the results?

Each state individually, same as now.

The real downside of this would be the simple fact that the TV news broadcasts would lose the 'suspense' of reporting each states results as they came in. 

They would have to wait until all the states reported their results. Actual results, not statewide poll percentages. It wouldn't matter if one candidate 'won' a particular state by a huge margin, only the vote numbers would. 
California would be the big vote tally result. Late to report (Pacific time zone), huge population, diverse population, all of that could make that state very pivotal.  But again, the state itself wouldn't matter, it would be the votes that did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

It wouldn't matter if one candidate 'won' a particular state by a huge margin, only the vote numbers would. 

But the exact number they won by would matter a lot. Imagine a close election. Instead of needing a recount or a legal fight in say, Florida, each of the States would be a battle. And there is no standard for accuracy, each State is different. Litigating a close election would become a National Nightmare.

I'm not saying electing a President by a true national vote is a bad idea. But I am saying that without a national vote counting system with national rules it is a terrible idea.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

But I am saying that without a national vote counting system with national rules it is a terrible idea.

Hi Ken,

I do not see this problem.  By Dec ( when the Electoral College votes ), we will know ( with some uncertainty ) what the vote counts are in each state.  I have yet to see any state go for one candidate by only one vote.

I do agree that it would be better if we had an official vote counting system.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

What was the vote count in Florida in 2000?

Official count was 2,912,790 to 2,912,253.

 

However, the nationwide total was 50,456,002 to 50,999,897. 

If the idea being proposed above was in place then, the Florida crap wouldn't have even made the papers, let alone the Supreme Court.

Instead, the 'Brooks Brothers Revolution' (led by Roger Stone) was what put Bush & Cheney in place. 

 

Numbers source: https://www.infoplease.com/us/government/elections/presidential-election-of-2000-electoral-and-popular-vote-summary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1