US Politics

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.

**Asherian Command**

ender502 wrote:
Yep. Unless you plan to rip the robots out of factories and go back to 50's era production styles, the jobs are gone.

The return from foreign lands of jobs has ever been anything but a racist dog whistle.

ender502

Not really 'racist' more just flat out unreasonable expectation, Those jobs are never coming back because for one we have automated those processes, two, human workers are more expensive than a machine, 3 we need less human workers just engineers who yes we pay more but we are ten times more productive and can meet quotas much faster. In the game design world we are starting to cut out certain groups of people as we speak, that being engineer creators, we need less of them, and artists are a dime a dozen now. But transitioning from high skill to low skill would cause unforseen consequences to our economy, we would essentially go into a freefall if we shifted our focus. Which is what many unskilled peoples want. Business owners do not look at non-college grads anymore, and expect people to have at least a college education. This being because you are far more valuable to a company with a degree than one without. Also because they are looking for what value you bring to company. And sadly many people lack those qualities (Especially unskilled workers). But unskilled workers getting their low skill jobs is very unlikely. There is very little reason for it to happen right now, and because we have hit the epitome of another transitional phase in society. And many of the people who are hopeful for the return of those jobs will not find it because we do not need unskilled labor jobs anymore. WE are in critical need of skilled laborers, (Engineers, Doctors, Designers, Architects, and emergency response teams, pilots and helk even more scientists). Especially scientists, in stem fields, engineering, advanced robotics, and physics.

This is called country growth over time a society develops. And because of that we are less needing people to work unskilled labor such as What we are currently seeing. There is less of a need for unskilled laborer as we start to automate everything, farmers are becoming less and less, as there is less of a need for as many farmers or as many railroad workers etc.

The focus has shifted from low skill to high skill.

**ender502**

Frazzled wrote:
djones520 wrote:
He may not be able to pull us out of those agreements, but he can take steps to help keep US manufacturing in the US.

Most of it would require working with Congress, as it will all take legislation to do, but lowering tax rates for companies that keep manufacturing jobs here. I'm sure a balance can be found for revenue where you keep costs for a company comparable, in comparison to the revenue brought in by several thousand new jobs.

Leverage popular opinion as well. Ford recently backtracked pretty hard on their plan to move a lot of manufacturing to Mexico. The outrage, especially in the rust belt, was very loud. Now their going to put some new plants in Michigan and Ohio.

Declare China a currency manipulator under appropriate legislation. Watch the fun begin.

And what exactly would be the point? A moral victory at best. Why? Because the only one that loses is the American consumer who ends up paying more for their WalMart crap.

ender502

**Peregrine**

SemperMortis wrote:
I would love to see a new law passed that FORBIDS sitting presidents from Campaigning for office for another person. IE What Obama just did for Clinton. So if trump decides not to run for re-election but is still in office he should not spend ta payers money on stumping for his party.

This more then anything else has annoyed me about politics. We elect people to do a job and they spend more time worrying about getting re-elected.

The first amendment pretty clearly forbids this law.

**Prestor Jon**

Lord of Deeds wrote:
As a bit of a seque from the popular vote vs EC discussion, I thought the following analysis was interesting. It is written as somewhat of a post mortem on Obama's legacy in regards to his influence on various elections at both the federal and state level. It seems that the last 6 years have been an unmitigated disaster election wise for the Democrats as a whole and would seem to offer evidence that there is more broad based support for Republicans than many people might think. It also seems to reaffirm the maxim "All politics is local" and that the 2016 Presidential election is the culmination of a trend that began two years after Obama became president. Offering the idea that had we been more attentive and looking in the right place, the surprise of 2016 shouldn't have been all that of a surprise. The other takeaway for me is what appears to be the utter failure of the political strategists in the DNC to develop a plan that would effectively address this trend. Had they, HRC might have pursued a different campaign strategy. Campaigning as if she was trying to make up votes and not just hold the ones she thought she had, which would have led to better engagement with independents and disaffected Republicans and thus avoid the loss of rust belt that ultimately secured Trump the election.

I think the article also hints at the fact that the Democratic leadership is in need of an overhaul. Obama, Reid, and Wasserman-Schultz are on the way out or already gone. The alleged Clinton machine appears to be dead. Does Pelosi deserve to say as minority leader in the House? Should Schumer really be the minority leader in the Senate? Are there other notable Democratic leaders that need to step aside to allow for the type of transformation that will allow the Democrats to reverse the trend and achieve the sustained broad election success that the Republicans seemed to have enjoyed the last 6 years? Or should the Democrats double down and castle up in their urban strongholds and not worry about rural and suburban America where the Republicans apparently hold sway?

The Democratic Party cathedral stands, to be sure, as structures will after a neutron-bomb attack. But it has been denuded of its priestly caste the elected officials who were teeming within it when Barack Obama was first elected in 2008 and had every reason to believe they would move inexorably from the back rows of American politics to the front. There are some 8,000 elected officials in the United States at the state and federal levels. Between 2009, when Barack Obama took office, and today, as he prepares to retire from it, more than 1,100 Democratic elected officials lost their jobs to Republicans. That number is unprecedented.

Barack Obama entered the White House with his party in control of 62 of the nation's 99 legislative chambers. By January 2015, Republicans were in control of 68. He then made it a personal mission to help reverse the damage that had caused the ejection of nearly a thousand Democratic state legislators from their seats by voters. He made 150 down-ballot endorsements in 2016 and even hit the trail for a few of them at a time when his personal approval rating was above 50 percent.

The result of the president's direct intercession? The Democrats did worse. On Election Night in 2016, Republicans took full control of the legislatures in Minnesota and Iowa. The Democratic Party's sole remaining legislative majority in the South, in Kentucky, fell to the GOP for the first time in nearly 100 years. In North Carolina, the GOP held onto veto-proof majorities in state legislatures despite the statewide loss of an unpopular Republican governor. The GOP prevented Democrats from retaking the state Senate in New York. There were some gains in Nevada and New Mexico and that was it.

The massacre of Democratic officials goes far beyond state legislatures. Democrats held 31 governorships in 2009. Now they hold 17, having been kicked out of the mansions in Missouri, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Following this year's election, Republicans have control of all levers of government in 25 states.

In Washington, after months of speculation that Democrats might eat away at the Republican majority in the House of Representatives or topple it, the GOP lost only nine seats and retained a 40-member advantage. And though the general expectation was that the Democrats were likely to take back control of the U.S. Senate, Republicans ended up losing only two incumbents and retained their majority at 52. Even more worrisome for Democrats, they head into the 2018 election with aging senators having to defend their seats in 10 states Donald Trump won.

The Democrats do need a change in leadership. The most powerful Democrats are the ones with seniority like Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, etc. but the reason they have seniority is because they are incumbents that face little to no opposition at the ballot box. Schumer is basically secure in a lifetime appointment as a NY Senator. Since he's senior he gets to be Senate minority leader but since he has a very safe seat what does he know about helping Democrats win in places where victory isn't a sure thing? The senior leadership lives in a nice safe echo chamber where they don't have to do much campaigning or face tough questions or issues. They don't have to compete. In fairness, this is true in both parties, long serving Republicans create the same problems. When the party leadership comes from the safest districts and states they are out of touch with the other areas where their Party is competing for votes or in the minority and that makes it hard for those leaders to plan effectively for those areas.

**Asherian Command**

Peregrine wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
I would love to see a new law passed that FORBIDS sitting presidents from Campaigning for office for another person. IE What Obama just did for Clinton. So if trump decides not to run for re-election but is still in office he should not spend ta payers money on stumping for his party.

This more then anything else has annoyed me about politics. We elect people to do a job and they spend more time worrying about getting re-elected.

The first amendment pretty clearly forbids this law.

^^^^

Yeah, what a president says about another candidate is their own opinion.

But taking action to actively prevent them coming into office is flat out illegal.

But anyway :

Declare China a currency manipulator under appropriate legislation. Watch the fun begin.

Goodluck with that.

I don't think pissing off the Chinese Government who we are on pretty good terms with would be appreciative of it.

**whembly**

Good stuff.

No, Voter Turnout Wasn’t Way Down From 2012
Stories are still circulating a week after the election that turnout fell sharply from 2012. That’s almost certainly not true. The confusion is the result of news outlets trying to pin down voter turnout figures quickly in a system that doesn’t count millions of votes until weeks after the election.

Approximately 58.1 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in last week’s presidential election, according to the latest estimates from Michael McDonald, associate professor at the University of Florida, who gathers data at the U.S. Elections Project. That’s down only slightly from 2012, when turnout was 58.6 percent, and well above 2000’s rate of 54.2 percent. Turnout may end up being higher than in any presidential election year between 1972 and 2000. (It’s already higher than in any midterm election since 1896, according to McDonald’s numbers, including the paltry 35.9 percent of voters who turned out two years ago.)

If your social media feed is anything like mine, though, you’re still seeing stories claiming only 53 percent or 55 percent of eligible Americans voted, which would represent the lowest turnout in at least 20 years. Those figures were based either on initial vote tallies (which inevitably rise as more ballots are counted) or on McDonald’s earlier estimates, which he is updating as more data becomes available. My own report Friday that turnout was 57 percent was based on estimates at the time, and it’s also out of date.

We won’t have final turnout numbers for weeks or months because some states are still counting ballots; millions remain uncounted. That means estimates based solely on votes counted so far will understate turnout — though already more presidential votes have been counted this year than in 2012 (contrary to reports that fewer voters turned out this year). In the meantime, most news organizations rely on estimates from McDonald.

While McDonald’s topline estimate of turnout has risen by just 1 percentage point since Friday, figures for individual states have changed far more: He now estimates turnout at 53.8 percent in California, which still has millions of ballots to count. That’s up from 45.5 percent on Friday. So here is a new version of the map we ran on turnout on Friday — itself, remember, subject to still more revision.

**Tannhauser42**

Frazzled wrote:
djones520 wrote:
He may not be able to pull us out of those agreements, but he can take steps to help keep US manufacturing in the US.

Most of it would require working with Congress, as it will all take legislation to do, but lowering tax rates for companies that keep manufacturing jobs here. I'm sure a balance can be found for revenue where you keep costs for a company comparable, in comparison to the revenue brought in by several thousand new jobs.

Leverage popular opinion as well. Ford recently backtracked pretty hard on their plan to move a lot of manufacturing to Mexico. The outrage, especially in the rust belt, was very loud. Now their going to put some new plants in Michigan and Ohio.

Declare China a currency manipulator under appropriate legislation. Watch the fun begin.

Given how much of American businesses and properties are owned by the Chinese, how much of our goods are manufactured there, and that they own 30% of our national debt, you have a very odd idea of "fun".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
I would love to see a new law passed that FORBIDS sitting presidents from Campaigning for office for another person. IE What Obama just did for Clinton. So if trump decides not to run for re-election but is still in office he should not spend ta payers money on stumping for his party.

This more then anything else has annoyed me about politics. We elect people to do a job and they spend more time worrying about getting re-elected.

The first amendment pretty clearly forbids this law.

If that were true, then why is the Hatch Act still in place? Admittedly, it exempts the President and VP and a few others.

**feeder**

whembly wrote:
Good stuff.

No, Voter Turnout Wasn’t Way Down From 2012
Stories are still circulating a week after the election that turnout fell sharply from 2012. That’s almost certainly not true. The confusion is the result of news outlets trying to pin down voter turnout figures quickly in a system that doesn’t count millions of votes until weeks after the election.

Approximately 58.1 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in last week’s presidential election, according to the latest estimates from Michael McDonald, associate professor at the University of Florida, who gathers data at the U.S. Elections Project. That’s down only slightly from 2012, when turnout was 58.6 percent, and well above 2000’s rate of 54.2 percent. Turnout may end up being higher than in any presidential election year between 1972 and 2000. (It’s already higher than in any midterm election since 1896, according to McDonald’s numbers, including the paltry 35.9 percent of voters who turned out two years ago.)

If your social media feed is anything like mine, though, you’re still seeing stories claiming only 53 percent or 55 percent of eligible Americans voted, which would represent the lowest turnout in at least 20 years. Those figures were based either on initial vote tallies (which inevitably rise as more ballots are counted) or on McDonald’s earlier estimates, which he is updating as more data becomes available. My own report Friday that turnout was 57 percent was based on estimates at the time, and it’s also out of date.

We won’t have final turnout numbers for weeks or months because some states are still counting ballots; millions remain uncounted. That means estimates based solely on votes counted so far will understate turnout — though already more presidential votes have been counted this year than in 2012 (contrary to reports that fewer voters turned out this year). In the meantime, most news organizations rely on estimates from McDonald.

While McDonald’s topline estimate of turnout has risen by just 1 percentage point since Friday, figures for individual states have changed far more: He now estimates turnout at 53.8 percent in California, which still has millions of ballots to count. That’s up from 45.5 percent on Friday. So here is a new version of the map we ran on turnout on Friday — itself, remember, subject to still more revision.

Well, Utah just did not give a gak this time round, huh?

**Frazzled**

Given how much of American businesses and properties are owned by the Chinese, how much of our goods are manufactured there, and that they own 30% of our national debt, you have a very odd idea of "fun".

I was just responding that there are ways the Executive could easily unilaterally create havoc.

**Asherian Command**

Well, Utah just did not give a gak this time round, huh?

I wonder why?

Oh I know why :

Romney was Mormon,

Trump wasn't....

Oh yeah.... Utah isn't known for being very pro-trump and many might of wished not to vote for him.

So I am not exactly surprised. Though I am surprised by Wisconsin and Mississippi.

**Kilkrazy**

I for one am delighted that hexagon map style board war games are returning to the arena of US politics.

**Tannhauser42**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I for one am delighted that hexagon map style board war games are returning to the arena of US politics.

The only thing missing is the return of cardboard chits. Or, in the political parlance, chads (hanging or otherwise).

**d-usa**

And the security clearance games begin:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trump-requests-security-clearance-son-law-jared-kushner-n684491

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
And the security clearance games begin:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trump-requests-security-clearance-son-law-jared-kushner-n684491

Now how does that work?

He can't officially be paid by the government?

...not that the Trump family needs to earn money anymore...

**sirlynchmob**

whembly wrote:

Executive actions will now be constitutional again and a sign of a leader taking action.

...he's not even President yet and you know how he'll use his power? But hey, the precedent is set...so THANK OBAMA!

In this case, yes. Every president has issued executive actions. Every! Single! One! of them. Odds of trump issuing them 100% Odds of them being called unconstitutional 0%, because everyone should know better, and the Democrats do and don't stoop that low.

when the democrats issue them, the conservative outrage machine goes into overdrive calling them unconstitutional.

**d-usa**

sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:

Executive actions will now be constitutional again and a sign of a leader taking action.
...he's not even President yet and you know how he'll use his power? But hey, the precedent is set...so THANK OBAMA!

In this case, yes. Every president has issued executive actions. Every! Single! One! of them. Odds of trump issuing them 100% Odds of them being called unconstitutional 0%, because everyone should know better, and the Democrats do and don't stoop that low.

when the democrats issue them, the conservative outrage machine goes into overdrive calling them unconstitutional.

Haven't you heard. President Obama set the precedent for using executive actions.

He set that precedent by issuing fewer executive orders than Bush Jr, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, and Roosevelt.

The one term (and less) Presidents managed to issue fewer total orders, but they still issued more of them per year than Obama did.

But yeah, THANKS OBAMA.

**Easy E**

Speaking of the new Democratic Leadership. They are voting for DNC chair now and a couple of candidates in the running are rather interesting.

Martin O'Malley- Who just pulled out
Howard '50 State" Dean- Former Chair
Rep Keith Ellison- Muslim and from a super-safe district in MN.
Labor Secretary Thomas Perez- Current Cabinet Member

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_chairmanship_election,_2017

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:

Executive actions will now be constitutional again and a sign of a leader taking action.
...he's not even President yet and you know how he'll use his power? But hey, the precedent is set...so THANK OBAMA!

In this case, yes. Every president has issued executive actions. Every! Single! One! of them. Odds of trump issuing them 100% Odds of them being called unconstitutional 0%, because everyone should know better, and the Democrats do and don't stoop that low.

when the democrats issue them, the conservative outrage machine goes into overdrive calling them unconstitutional.

Haven't you heard. President Obama set the precedent for using executive actions.

He set that precedent by issuing fewer executive orders than Bush Jr, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, and Roosevelt.

The one term (and less) Presidents managed to issue fewer total orders, but they still issued more of them per year than Obama did.

But yeah, THANKS OBAMA.

Uh... Obama has been taken to the woodshed for some of his Executive Order overreach.

If Trump does the same thing... yeah, I'll be right here saying it's bs.

Oh... @sirlynchmob... Trump isn't 'conservative'... and neither is the GOP party as a whole.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
Speaking of the new Democratic Leadership. They are voting for DNC chair now and a couple of candidates in the running are rather interesting.

Martin O'Malley- Who just pulled out
Howard '50 State" Dean- Former Chair
Rep Keith Ellison- Muslim and from a super-safe district in MN.
Labor Secretary Thomas Perez- Current Cabinet Member

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_chairmanship_election,_2017

Damn... I thought O'Malley would be the wise choice...

**hotsauceman1**

tneva82 wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
In some states the electors can vote against the popular vote of the state...

YEah but doesn't seem to be all that common and there seems to be huge backlash here against the mere IDEA that they would vote against what election result.

Looks to be nothing more than rubber stamps which makes it just wasted money.

It may have its roots in pre-modern world. More that the elector would gather and tell of their states votes.

**Relapse**

Asherian Command wrote:
Well, Utah just did not give a gak this time round, huh?

I wonder why?

Oh I know why :

Romney was Mormon,

Trump wasn't....

Oh yeah.... Utah isn't known for being very pro-trump and many might of wished not to vote for him.

So I am not exactly surprised. Though I am surprised by Wisconsin and Mississippi.

Religion didn't really enter into many of the conversations about Trump here, except when McMullin hove into view. Even then he got his ass soundly kicked in Utah, in spite of all the pre election stories about him taking the state.

**Tannhauser42**

In other news, Paul Ryan did something I actually approve of:
He pushed to keep the current House ban on earmarks in place.
Until the beginning of next year, anyway.

What I find amusing is the argument about how no earmarks means unelected bureaucrats get to be the ones in charge of doling out the money. Except, for much of us, Congress is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats. I certainly didn't elect my current representative. And, largely speaking, due to the two-party system we pretty much don't have a choice in who our reps are (sure, I get to vote blue or red, but it's not like I get to have any meaningful choice as to who the blue or red actually is).

**feeder**

Relapse wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Well, Utah just did not give a gak this time round, huh?

I wonder why?

Oh I know why :

Romney was Mormon,

Trump wasn't....

Oh yeah.... Utah isn't known for being very pro-trump and many might of wished not to vote for him.

So I am not exactly surprised. Though I am surprised by Wisconsin and Mississippi.

Religion didn't really enter into many of the conversations about Trump here, except when McMullin hove into view. Even then he got his ass soundly kicked in Utah, in spite of all the pre election stories about him taking the state.

Romney was hometown hero there, I forgot that.

If Utah Mormons are anything like the Mormons I know around here, they would have been unable to support Trump based on his completely immoral character.

**d-usa**

Food for thought:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5d8zop/serious_people_who_have_met_or_dealt_with_donald/?st=ivljqry9&sh=0dadbb24

I really don't know what to expect. I mean, I know what to expect from a GOP controlled House and Senate. But I really don't know what to expect from a Trump White House.

I really meant my post from a few days ago, about not knowing what to make of the people he surrounds himself with. I'm hoping he is just giving them high profile positions as a reward for loyalty, while keeping his own policy plans in play (even if nobody knows what the policies actually are, they have to be better than what the people he puts there are likely to have).

I see him either crashing and burning in a flaming pile of white nationalist craziness, or becoming a decent President all things considering.

If he crashes and burns, I can see him being a one term president and a wave of Democrats taking the Senate and the White House in 2020 and maybe even a Democrat gain in 2018. If he turns out to be nothing like his campaign persona I can see him being a sitting president facing a serious primary challenge during 2020.

**ender502**

sirlynchmob wrote:

Haven't you heard. President Obama set the precedent for using executive actions.

He set that precedent by issuing fewer executive orders than Bush Jr, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, and Roosevelt.

The one term (and less) Presidents managed to issue fewer total orders, but they still issued more of them per year than Obama did.

But yeah, THANKS OBAMA.

Yeah, it was Bush the younger that really ramped up the executive orders and the "signing statements." Those were addendums to laws that basically said "yep, unless I don't wanna." You can trace the line back of increasingly strong executive offices to Ford... That's where the devil himself, Dick Cheney, tried to convince Ford not to sign the FOA law. Said it would weaken the presidency...if people knew what they were doing.

Yes. Dick Cheney has been kicking around that long. The evil wizard behind the curtain. Slowly poisoning the world with his mere presence. Right now that half man, half lizard is lubing up a trump hat and going to town while thinking about shooting poor people in the face with buck shot.

ender502

**feeder**

d-usa wrote:
Food for thought:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5d8zop/serious_people_who_have_met_or_dealt_with_donald/?st=ivljqry9&sh=0dadbb24

I really don't know what to expect. I mean, I know what to expect from a GOP controlled House and Senate. But I really don't know what to expect from a Trump White House.

I really meant my post from a few days ago, about not knowing what to make of the people he surrounds himself with. I'm hoping he is just giving them high profile positions as a reward for loyalty, while keeping his own policy plans in play (even if nobody knows what the policies actually are, they have to be better than what the people he puts there are likely to have).

I see him either crashing and burning in a flaming pile of white nationalist craziness, or becoming a decent President all things considering.

If he crashes and burns, I can see him being a one term president and a wave of Democrats taking the Senate and the White House in 2020 and maybe even a Democrat gain in 2018. If he turns out to be nothing like his campaign persona I can see him being a sitting president facing a serious primary challenge during 2020.

The third way, and I suspect this is the most likely outcome, is Trump get bored by about September next year and walks away making race car noises. This leaves the WH in the hands of Pence and company, which, depending on who from the current clown car full of evil persons he has orbiting him at the moment are in that circle, could be very bad for America.

**Relapse**

feeder wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Well, Utah just did not give a gak this time round, huh?

I wonder why?

Oh I know why :

Romney was Mormon,

Trump wasn't....

Oh yeah.... Utah isn't known for being very pro-trump and many might of wished not to vote for him.

So I am not exactly surprised. Though I am surprised by Wisconsin and Mississippi.

Religion didn't really enter into many of the conversations about Trump here, except when McMullin hove into view. Even then he got his ass soundly kicked in Utah, in spite of all the pre election stories about him taking the state.

Romney was hometown hero there, I forgot that.

If Utah Mormons are anything like the Mormons I know around here, they would have been unable to support Trump based on his completely immoral character.

For most that I know here, it was a very unpalatable choice of candidates, with Clinton being seen around here to be just as bad, if not worse than Trump, having scandals and legal troubles of her own.

**sebster**

LordofHats wrote:
SCOTUS isn't allowed to rule on things without jurisdiction, and their jurisdiction understandably does not extend to include "things we'd like to rule on but no one has brought the case before us."

It is not Constitutional for SCOTUS to issue a ruling until some can bring a case before them, and there's no way to do that if the Compact never tries to be put into effect. if it every reaches the margin necessary to go into effect, we'll find out because that's when stuff will happen and the case will be brought.

Yeah, I know about standing, I was just wondering if there was a way to bring it before an actual election was held. For instance, could an elector be appointed a year out from the election and take the matter to court to challenge whether his vote could be bound in this way?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Trump got over 300 electoral college votes. That is the biggest beating a D has taken in a while (since 1988), and since getting those EC votes was the game being played, judging the contest by the results is fair. The loss of what had been considered 'safe' counties for the Ds, in the quantities she lost them is indicative of the whooping she took and directly led to her seeing D states flip to R states for this election. Had those counties not flipped in the quantities they did, the states would not have flipped.

You are right that Trump flipped some previously safe Democratic states, and that was a significant result that impact future elections. But when your 270 vote firewall is held up multiple states where you won by a tick over 1%, then calling the win a beating is absolute nonsense.

Let me explain it this way, when Obama won in 2008 the tipping point state was Colorado, which he won by more than 9 points. This meant that for Republicans to manage a win in 2012 they had to regain 9%, this gave Obama a huge amount of room to maneuver, so that even with the significant Republican recovery in the next four years, Obama still won comfortably in 2012. In contrast, if Trump loses 1.5% in 2020 then he's losing. That's because this was a close election.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I agree with what's being said. Trump won fair and square by the rules that he and Clinton signed up to.

Absolutely.

All this horsegak about popular vote beating EC is just that: horsegak.

If the situation had been reversed, I doubt we'd hear anything about popular vote.

Of course we'd hear about it, its just the roles would be reversed, with conservatives complaining about the result and claiming Trump 'really' won, while Democrats would be pointing out these are the rules of the game.

I you don't like the rules, don't play the game, as the old saying goes.

Which has always been a gak saying, because it denies the option of discussing the rules and making them better for future. By all means, the rules must stand for this election, because that's how lawful democracies work. But lawful democracies can also change the rules for the future, when it's obvious the rules are very disfunctional.

**BaronIveagh**

Asherian Command wrote:
And many of the people who are hopeful for the return of those jobs will not find it because we do not need unskilled labor jobs anymore. WE are in critical need of skilled laborers, (Engineers, Doctors, Designers, Architects, and emergency response teams, pilots and helk even more scientists). Especially scientists, in stem fields, engineering, advanced robotics, and physics.

This is called country growth over time a society develops. And because of that we are less needing people to work unskilled labor such as What we are currently seeing. There is less of a need for unskilled laborer as we start to automate everything, farmers are becoming less and less, as there is less of a need for as many farmers or as many railroad workers etc.

The focus has shifted from low skill to high skill.

Well, No. Otherwise those millions of illegal immigrants would leave on their own seeking work elsewhere.

The 'big idea' of a service based economy is disintegrating around us because it's basically an illusion. It always has been, but as it looses gas, it becomes more and more apparent. Heck, I had a guy with a PhD doing data entry as a GS 4, for crying out loud. He actually accepted the position. He didn't stay, I grant, but atm I can walk down a row of cubicles and pull out four people with a masters in IT or a related field, a material engineer and an aeronautics engineer, a former airforce pilot, an aircraft mechanic, and three bureaucrats. And a Historian. None of whom are making over GS 5 and all are doing unskilled labor doing data entry.

**Ahtman**

I like to think of myself as unskilled unlabor ie I nap a lot.

**LordofHats**

sebster wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
SCOTUS isn't allowed to rule on things without jurisdiction, and their jurisdiction understandably does not extend to include "things we'd like to rule on but no one has brought the case before us."

It is not Constitutional for SCOTUS to issue a ruling until some can bring a case before them, and there's no way to do that if the Compact never tries to be put into effect. if it every reaches the margin necessary to go into effect, we'll find out because that's when stuff will happen and the case will be brought.

Yeah, I know about standing, I was just wondering if there was a way to bring it before an actual election was held. For instance, could an elector be appointed a year out from the election and take the matter to court to challenge whether his vote could be bound in this way?

As a non-lawyer, my understanding is that cases require a claim of harm. I don't think you can make one until a vote has actually been cast. Some "maybe doing something perhaps who knows" can't really cause anyone harm.