Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Future War Cultist wrote: So would you guys rather have a directly elected senate or an appointed one?
I'd prefer them appointed by their State legislatures.
You just want it because the R's have the advantage in state legislatures.
I feel disenfranchised enough as it is. I don't want my Senators to be appointed because they paid off enough state level reps to get the job. Which is exactly what will happen, and will make things an even worse good ol' boys club than they already are.
Plus the rampant gerrymandering that happens at the state level.
Gerrymandering only affects the popular vote it wouldn't come into play with state govts appointing senators to Congress if we repealed the 17th amendment.
I'm sorry, how the feth do you think state legislators are selected? State districts are gerrymandered to feth, much more than house districts.
States have distinct and compelling interests in how the federal govt runs the country and having those interests heard in Congress isn't a bad thing at all. Turning the Senate into an extension of the House undermines the purpose of having the Senate. The constitution didn't mandate how states select Senators so states were free to determine that process on their own, be it appointment by the governor or the state legislature holding a vote or whatever.
And those states have a voice through their Senators and Representatives. Representatives lobby for their states.
The selection process for state legislators is a separate subject to how Senators were appointed to Congress prior to the ratification of the 17th amendment. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the appoint of Senators as not all states requires a vote from the state legislature to appoint a Senator.
Representatives in the House represent their congressional districts and the people who reside therein. They do not and never have represented the interest of the state as a whole that is the job of Senators in the Senate. We have a bicameral legislature for a reason so that the people are represented in the house and the states are represented in the Senate. What the people want and what is prudent or possible to provide can be competing interests likewise what the federal govt wants and what is best for individual states. It is also to prevent the tyranny of the majority and set all states on equal footing regardless of population and make agreement amongst a majority of the states a prerequisite for federal legislation to be passed.
The most important video about this election so far:
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
The Video of the court hearing is truely something to behold - you can hear the Judges frustration at the obviously bulls**t things the Trump campaign is asking for.
Asking to have an order to preserve "election data" that already has to be preserved. Asking for names of individual poll workers to be made public, despite Trump rabidly screeching about "rigged polls", and getting his supporters worked up into frenzy. Judge was right to smack them down.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 00:23:42
Prestor Jon wrote: The selection process for state legislators is a separate subject to how Senators were appointed to Congress prior to the ratification of the 17th amendment. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the appoint of Senators as not all states requires a vote from the state legislature to appoint a Senator.
It does if we make them appointed by state legislators, which is what was suggested. AFAIAA, the 17th wasn't even explicetly mentioned.
Representatives in the House represent their congressional districts and the people who reside therein. They do not and never have represented the interest of the state as a whole that is the job of Senators in the Senate. We have a bicameral legislature for a reason so that the people are represented in the house and the states are represented in the Senate. What the people want and what is prudent or possible to provide can be competing interests likewise what the federal govt wants and what is best for individual states. It is also to prevent the tyranny of the majority and set all states on equal footing regardless of population and make agreement amongst a majority of the states a prerequisite for federal legislation to be passed.
So if reps can lobby for their districts now, why can't congress lobby for their districts now? Why do they have to be appointed rather than elected?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shasolenzabi wrote: weirdness already, results shown for states, but Vermont has no numbers yet already called for Clinton w/o any results???
Usually this happens when the polling for a state is so obviously one-sided that there's no real point in waiting for official confirmation. Maybe they wait for a precinct or two to report and show that a completely unexpected reversal hasn't happened, but that's all. Vermont has been showing a 20+ point lead for Clinton and Trump's chances of overcoming that are virtually nonexistent.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Very early of course, but it looks like Trump is going stronger in the swingstates that's starting to be counted than expected. When looking at isolated districts and comparing with the 2012 results, we see a increase compared to Romneys numbers. If that holds up, I don't see why the same trend wouldn't hold true for the rest of the states as well. A few percentage points Trump's way in the swing states and he wins.
Bradley effect, or lower than expected turnout of (traditionally democratic) african-americans?
Vermont could be called the moment the polls shut without a shadow of a doubt. Similarly West Virginia will be called the moment it's polls close, as there's no chance it won't go for Trump.
The "calls" at this point are made by individual media outlets of course, not by election officials, so it's just saying "this is who we think is going to win".
Edit: and literally 10 seconds after I post, your link starts showing West Virginia being called. Ha!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 00:34:36
jasper76 wrote: Jill; Stein disqualified herself with me when she said in a CNN townhall that she wants to shut down all US military bases outside of the United States.
Odd, Ron Paul was loved for stating the same thing. something about that constitution and ensnaring alliances.
Ron Paul is that crazy uncle that believes the government is controlling us with Flouride in the water. But your comparison is completely apt.
APT, I say!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: What are thoughts on Florida? 27% in, and it's neck and neck. Making me think Trump's gonna get it, cause the panhandle.
NO panicking until Miami-Dade county posts their numbers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 00:33:21
Vermont could be called the moment the polls shut without a shadow of a doubt. Similarly West Virginia will be called the moment it's polls close, as there's no chance it won't go for Trump.
The "calls" at this point are made by individual media outlets of course, not by election officials, so it's just saying "this is who we think is going to win".
djones520 wrote: What are thoughts on Florida? 27% in, and it's neck and neck. Making me think Trump's gonna get it, cause the panhandle.
If he loses Florida, he loses the election.
If he's neck and neck in Florida, he loses the election.
Trump needs to massively outperform his polls, and pick up Michigan or Pennsylvania to win, neither of which is going to happen unless there was a massive multipoint swing right across the country.
Meanwhile, the pan handle is strong for Trump, but from the early voting polling I've seen, I'm still reckoning Clinton takes it without a recount needed.
Trump is pulling ahead in Florida, though it is still early results.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 00:44:26
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
djones520 wrote: 53% in, he's got an almost 2% lead. Lot of the panhandle hasn't been touched yet. Going to be interesting.
CNN is showing about 54% counted, and Trump currently has about 115k vote lead... but I don't think they've colored in the Miami-Dade county block yet... there's actually a bunch of counties still showing blank.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Come in from commercial and CNN shows 65% in Florida, and now Clinton has a 65k vote lead...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 00:49:29
So few counties counted, so many more to go per state
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
shasolenzabi wrote: And in the past, despite hard work and efforts, the most I recall of the Greens (with Nader) got was 3% and that shook up the status quo, so 5% is not a "participation prize" as that would be more for the party that got 0-1%
Of course it's a participation trophy. If you get 5% of the vote you don't get to be president, you don't get seats in congress, you don't get appointed to any important positions, etc. All you get is a token 1% of the funding that a major party candidate typically has and the privilege of continuing to be on the ballot so maybe you can get another 5% participation trophy next year.
That folks so vehemently support the system that has failed us for decades and did so with gusto says how well entrenched the corporate media has dug the propaganda in their heads, stability? not likely, look t the past few years 15yrs of wars, fracking, trade deals, and other nonsense.
I don't see this "support" you're talking about. Acknowledging that the structure of the US electoral system makes it very difficult for third party candidates to win is not the same as believing that it should be that way. Nor is "vote Clinton because she's the only alternative to Trump with a hope of winning" the same as "Clinton is the bestest evar!!!".
voting Hillary is not actual faith in his ideals for change, looking at the Green platform Jill is closer to Bernie than Hillary could ever be, she will not listen to anyone if the win is a landslide, she might if she narrowly makes it by a few points, while I would hope the groundswell of anger would help push Jill to the top, I will settle for at least 5%
Who cares about "faith in his ideals". It is indisputable fact that Trump or Clinton will win. And of the two Clinton is very obviously closer to Sanders' positions. If you want to influence the country in the direction of Sanders' platform you vote for Clinton, period.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
shasolenzabi wrote: It is the responsibility of voters to actually do due diligence on candidates and see where they stand on issues and why, not just vote Party A just 'coz.
I think you should consider the possibility that voters have done their due diligence, and have dismissed Jill Stein out of hand because of her views.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
shasolenzabi wrote: And in the past, despite hard work and efforts, the most I recall of the Greens (with Nader) got was 3% and that shook up the status quo, so 5% is not a "participation prize" as that would be more for the party that got 0-1%
Of course it's a participation trophy. If you get 5% of the vote you don't get to be president, you don't get seats in congress, you don't get appointed to any important positions, etc. All you get is a token 1% of the funding that a major party candidate typically has and the privilege of continuing to be on the ballot so maybe you can get another 5% participation trophy next year.
Well, the failure to get 5% is why there was no 3rd party run in 2012, here is what is required by the election commissions
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml
shasolenzabi wrote: It is the responsibility of voters to actually do due diligence on candidates and see where they stand on issues and why, not just vote Party A just 'coz.
I think you should consider the possibility that voters have done their due diligence, and have dismissed Jill Stein out of hand because of her views.
Not all voters do, some do it based on family voting habits, others swayed too easily by the media that is heavily supportive of one candidate, etc. And based on some numbers,. not all have dismissed Stein or Johnson the numbers show that people are in fact casting or have cast votes for 3rd party candidates
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
d-usa wrote: Next set of states closing, lots of exit-poll based projections.
Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida are going to be the deciding factor pretty early on tonight.
Strangely, Clinton could lose all three and still win the election though.
True, but Florida is an even split right now, and Ohio and North Carolina look like they will be going for Clinton. If the results hold up I'm pretty confident in calling the election done.
3000
4000 
