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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It's almost as if some hack saw what Republican governor Pat McRory may have been doing in North Carolina

Ugh, thanks for reminding me. McCrory getting thrown out has been the one bright spot of this election, and his absurd denial of the result is getting really frustrating.

They are also apparently looking to pack their supreme court because a conservative justice was replaced by a liberal one.

While "pack" is not a verb I'm familiar with in this context, none of what I'm imagining it might mean seems good. Clarify?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It's almost as if some hack saw what Republican governor Pat McRory may have been doing in North Carolina

Ugh, thanks for reminding me. McCrory getting thrown out has been the one bright spot of this election, and his absurd denial of the result is getting really frustrating.

They are also apparently looking to pack their supreme court because a conservative justice was replaced by a liberal one.

While "pack" is not a verb I'm familiar with in this context, none of what I'm imagining it might mean seems good. Clarify?

It's a strategy to add more justices to the court by creating new "seats:

See here what FDR advocated:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It's almost as if some hack saw what Republican governor Pat McRory may have been doing in North Carolina

Ugh, thanks for reminding me. McCrory getting thrown out has been the one bright spot of this election, and his absurd denial of the result is getting really frustrating.

They are also apparently looking to pack their supreme court because a conservative justice was replaced by a liberal one.

While "pack" is not a verb I'm familiar with in this context, none of what I'm imagining it might mean seems good. Clarify?

It's a strategy to add more justices to the court by creating new "seats:

See here what FDR advocated:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

Isn't the precise number of justices a bit arbitrary anyways?

9 is the first odd number to also not be a prime number

I don't know about you sir, but 11 is too many and like hell my number of justices will be a prime number!

 LordofHats wrote:
9 is the first odd number to also not be a prime number

I don't know about you sir, but 11 is too many and like hell my number of justices will be a prime number!

Well that entirely depends on whether you consider 1 to be a prime number or not

 Pouncey wrote:
Isn't the precise number of justices a bit arbitrary anyways?

It is arbitrary, but the only reason to increase it is "we lost the election, let's change the system so we win instead". It's one of those things that is not technically illegal but so blatantly undemocratic that even speculating about it is political suicide. The fact that the NC republican party is talking about this is a sign of extreme desperation.

 Peregrine wrote:

There's a difference between "this is unhealthy if you eat too much of it" and "this could kill you if there's any slip in safety".

It was originally banned because ones of its main ingredients is sheep lung, which is apparently not classed as a foodstuff in the US.

There is nothing unsafe about eating sheep lungs (well its pretty unhealthy for the sheep).

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

There's a difference between "this is unhealthy if you eat too much of it" and "this could kill you if there's any slip in safety".

It was originally banned because ones of its main ingredients is sheep lung, which is apparently not classed as a foodstuff in the US.

There is nothing unsafe about eating sheep lungs (well its pretty unhealthy for the sheep).

Well, that depends on whether the sheep was a smoker or not

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
9 is the first odd number to also not be a prime number

I don't know about you sir, but 11 is too many and like hell my number of justices will be a prime number!

Well that entirely depends on whether you consider 1 to be a prime number or not

In the grand American tradition, I will ignore all persons with more relevant experience and knowledge, say 1 is a prime number, and call anyone who disagrees with me an elitist prick because how dare snooty liberal academics dare to suggest they know more than me about something I was never educated on.

An adorable bunny picture on all their sigs!

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

There's a difference between "this is unhealthy if you eat too much of it" and "this could kill you if there's any slip in safety".

It was originally banned because ones of its main ingredients is sheep lung, which is apparently not classed as a foodstuff in the US.

There is nothing unsafe about eating sheep lungs (well its pretty unhealthy for the sheep).

It's actually because of scrapie. Haggis contains sheep offal, and the US government were not convinced that it could not be transmitted to humans.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Isn't the precise number of justices a bit arbitrary anyways?

It is arbitrary, but the only reason to increase it is "we lost the election, let's change the system so we win instead". It's one of those things that is not technically illegal but so blatantly undemocratic that even speculating about it is political suicide. The fact that the NC republican party is talking about this is a sign of extreme desperation.

It wasn't political suicide for FDR. He used the threat of court-packing to (allegedly) influence the ruling of the supreme court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

 Zywus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Isn't the precise number of justices a bit arbitrary anyways?

It is arbitrary, but the only reason to increase it is "we lost the election, let's change the system so we win instead". It's one of those things that is not technically illegal but so blatantly undemocratic that even speculating about it is political suicide. The fact that the NC republican party is talking about this is a sign of extreme desperation.

It wasn't political suicide for FDR. He used the threat of court-packing to (allegedly) influence the ruling of the supreme court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

He was talking about the NC state supreme court, not the federal one.

I think it would be political suicide of the NC republican party pushes for more seats...

 Zywus wrote:
It wasn't political suicide for FDR. He used the threat of court-packing to (allegedly) influence the ruling of the supreme court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

It wasn't outright suicide, but FDR's plan was unpopular even with his own party and he eventually backed down from it. It's quite possible that, had he pushed harder for it, the outcome would have been suicide.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
It wasn't political suicide for FDR. He used the threat of court-packing to (allegedly) influence the ruling of the supreme court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

It wasn't outright suicide, but FDR's plan was unpopular even with his own party and he eventually backed down from it. It's quite possible that, had he pushed harder for it, the outcome would have been suicide.

It worked. Note the how SCOTUS acted before and after his threats.

 Frazzled wrote:
It worked. Note the how SCOTUS acted before and after his threats.

Arguable. Read the wikipedia article linked, the "switch" happened before FDR announced his plan, and later successes were helped by FDR getting to nominate his own justices the normal way.

And of course whether or not it works in the short term is not the question. Obviously if you stack the courts you have a chance to take advantage of it before any consequences happen, simply because elections don't happen every day. If the NC republican party succeeds in delaying the recount of the vote kicking out McCrory long enough to trigger the "let the legislature decide" option and can pack the state supreme court to ensure approval of their plan they can keep McCrory in power. And they'll have some time before the next election to do more awful things with that power. But it's a pretty safe bet that there will be fatal consequences in the next election if they overturn the will of the people so blatantly. You don't even consider court packing unless you're willing to suicide your entire party for temporary power.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It worked. Note the how SCOTUS acted before and after his threats.

Arguable. Read the wikipedia article linked, the "switch" happened before FDR announced his plan, and later successes were helped by FDR getting to nominate his own justices the normal way.

And of course whether or not it works in the short term is not the question. Obviously if you stack the courts you have a chance to take advantage of it before any consequences happen, simply because elections don't happen every day. If the NC republican party succeeds in delaying the recount of the vote kicking out McCrory long enough to trigger the "let the legislature decide" option and can pack the state supreme court to ensure approval of their plan they can keep McCrory in power. And they'll have some time before the next election to do more awful things with that power. But it's a pretty safe bet that there will be fatal consequences in the next election if they overturn the will of the people so blatantly. You don't even consider court packing unless you're willing to suicide your entire party for temporary power.

I am not discussing the NC plan (not even aware of it) or the morality of it, only that it worked.

Let me float something: Let's say that they find actual proof that there was a hack. Where does that leave us?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me float something: Let's say that they find actual proof that there was a hack. Where does that leave us?

No where. Are you going to nuke Moscow over it?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me float something: Let's say that they find actual proof that there was a hack. Where does that leave us?

What happened to Gary Powers?

Walking the walk...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-elector-art-sisneros-to-resign-instead-of-voting-for-donald-trump/ar-AAkRIX1?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Resigning is a much better course of action than going the "faithless" route.

I agree. If an elector can't exercise their Madison interpretation of the Constitution given right of voting for whom they think is best, they should resign

But I'm just having fun

One concern I have here is the phrase "Trump is unqualified to be President". While he may be a massive donkey cave, he does meet the qualifications : one must be 35 years of age, a resident "within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen," a term not defined in the Constitution.

There is a trend even here with right and left both trying to claim the moral high ground (no one has it to be honest) and holding the other in contempt, that is the poison of our situation, an utter lack of respect for each other. I am very guilty of that myself. Granted its not everyone, there are some really class acts here.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me float something: Let's say that they find actual proof that there was a hack. Where does that leave us?

Cold War 2: Electric Boogaloo

 Sarouan wrote:
Of course this is an issue. But, sebster, the trick is it's quite clear the Republicans' basing vote doesn't care at all about that. It's irrelevant to them. They were told for years by Republicans the government is either useless or conspiring against them. I think a lot of people in America take pride in being able to handle themselves on their own, and they intend to keep that way no matter what the "big heads" decide far, far away from their houses.

Having the Red Team in charge means the evil Blue Team is out, and that's all they care about. You can read that kind of stuff all the time on this topic.

Definitely, that's been the crux of my argument for a long time, and LordofHats (I believe it was him) wrote an excellent post a while ago, talking about how the various strands of the Republican party are held together by hostility towards the Democrats.

But that is a much easier alliance to hold when you're out of power. Once you're in power and you have to start doing things that the hard right and donor class want, but that will directly, negatively impact the working class, well then you start getting problems. "Replace and repeal" only works until you have the power to actually do it.

Note that he attacked on this point when he saw the recounts were on the way. He didn't care about that when Clinton admitted defeat.

In other words; he's only trying to justify himself with whatever he can find when he's angry or annoyed.

I think that's Trump commenting on events as they happen to him. People have commented that Trump played the easily distracted TV news media so well by filling it every night with surface level nonsense, but I'm not sure there was as much cunning there as people assumed. I think that happened naturally because Trump is even more easily distracted, even more surface level than TV news.

He put that twitter post up because it came to his attention, and so he just had to respond with his own pet theory on the subject.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
By your logic, the USA should be invading China, and having round 2 against the North Koreans.

Let me put it this way. You might become aware of a guy who you know has hit his wife a couple of times over their ten years of marriage. What that guy did was disgraceful, but there's limits on what you can do about it, if only because there's a pretty good chance you'll make things a lot worse.

But then there might be another case, where you see a guy in the act of committing an honour killing right in front of you. You simply have no choice but to do something about it.

Syria was an example of the latter. People protested his rule, and he responded by torturing and killing thousands.

Truthfully, Sebster, I am disappointed, because 99% of the time, your comments, even when I disagree with them, are articulate, and well argued, this one is not...

I bat maybe 85%. Lately, in my sleep deprived new baby state, it's more like 50%


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
The Gilded Age Presidents like Arthur and grant are pretty excited by this turn of events. They might move up the Presidential ranking ladder soon!

I think it should be every president's first ambition to end somewhere better as no worse than the second or fifth worse president. Because when people give a list of worst presidents, they stop after listing two or three. Staying off that list should be the first aim of any new president.

I am not convinced of Trump's ability to achieve that goal.

I have a feeling at the end of the next two years, the R's will still just blame the D's for everything and middle America will still vote for R's. I mean look at Kansas as the canary in the coal mine. This is what will happen in the greater US for the next election, and possible the next Presidential election as well.

Kansas is a great example. Idiotic tax cut fueled by nonsense economics, that failed completely and left a massive blackhole. Some Republicans even endorsed his Democratic challenger in the next election, because of the disaster that Brownback inflicted on the state. And yet Brownback was still voted in, albeit narrowly.

The nation as a whole isn't the same as Kansas, of course. But it does show how many people are willing to ignore self inflicted fiscal disasters for... reasons. And state deficits are much more pressing and much more immediate than federal deficits, so the pressure that will come from Trump's disastrous tax cut won't be as immediate as the pressure in Kansas.

I predict 2020 will feature a massive deficit, 2% growth, and a lot of Republicans saying that you have to give the tax cut time to work it's magic. And Trump will get the same 60 million votes that all Republicans get. The question will be whether Democrats organise well enough to beat that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
Isn't the precise number of justices a bit arbitrary anyways?

Any number that is picked will be arbitrary. Here in Australia our highest court, the High Court, has 7 justices.

So it isn't about the number on the bench. Make it 5, 15, whatever. The issue is with changing the number of judges for the purpose of controlling the appointments to the court and creating a court that leans your way. Whembly is right that it wasn't cool when FDR tried this stunt. And of course, it isn't cool now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
It is arbitrary, but the only reason to increase it is "we lost the election, let's change the system so we win instead". It's one of those things that is not technically illegal but so blatantly undemocratic that even speculating about it is political suicide. The fact that the NC republican party is talking about this is a sign of extreme desperation.

I don't tihnk its desperation, afterall NC still dominates the legislative. I think it's more that the republican party is showing that it cares almost nothing for accepted practice. And what's more, it's now been shown to them that their voting base doesn't care either.

 thekingofkings wrote:
One concern I have here is the phrase "Trump is unqualified to be President". While he may be a massive donkey cave, he does meet the qualifications : one must be 35 years of age, a resident "within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen," a term not defined in the Constitution.

There is a trend even here with right and left both trying to claim the moral high ground (no one has it to be honest) and holding the other in contempt, that is the poison of our situation, an utter lack of respect for each other. I am very guilty of that myself. Granted its not everyone, there are some really class acts here.

the problem here is language... Yes, he meets the defined minimum requirements of things which one must possess... But as the years have progressed, certain "on the job" skills have become something of a requirement, even if not listed. This is the big jab against him, when people say he's unqualified: he's never held a political office, much less been elected for anything beyond "student most likely to have a horrible haircut" in the high school year book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


Kansas is a great example. Idiotic tax cut fueled by nonsense economics, that failed completely and left a massive blackhole. Some Republicans even endorsed his Democratic challenger in the next election, because of the disaster that Brownback inflicted on the state. And yet Brownback was still voted in, albeit narrowly.

The nation as a whole isn't the same as Kansas, of course. But it does show how many people are willing to ignore self inflicted fiscal disasters for... reasons. And state deficits are much more pressing and much more immediate than federal deficits, so the pressure that will come from Trump's disastrous tax cut won't be as immediate as the pressure in Kansas.

I predict 2020 will feature a massive deficit, 2% growth, and a lot of Republicans saying that you have to give the tax cut time to work it's magic. And Trump will get the same 60 million votes that all Republicans get. The question will be whether Democrats organise well enough to beat that.

I think part of the problem is, while folks like us can see the trickle-down for what it is, and what the overall damage has been.... there are still publications putting out articles talking about how great everything is. There was a Forbes article (a once respectable publication, now it's basically a right wing economic rag) that basically said that Kansas being in a terrible spot right now, was all a liberal conspiracy, and the proof they offered was that in one fiscal year, Kansas had seen almost double the amount of new small business formation requests (the forms submitted in the state to the state's business bureau)

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me float something: Let's say that they find actual proof that there was a hack. Where does that leave us?

If the scope of the hack is known, you adjust the vote count by that amount. This is extremely unlikely to be enough to flip the state, and even if it did Trump would still have more than 270 EV. You would then open up investigations in to other states to look for similar hacks. Meanwhile, you undertake new processes to make sure this doesn't happen again, and of course you would begin a criminal investigations in to whoever, domestic or international, who attempted the voter fraud.

But the biggest thing here is figure there's almost no chance of a hack being found. The discrepancies reported are fairly easily explained by demographics, plus some random variation in individual counties. But that doesn't mean an audit isn't worthwhile. Such things should probably be fairly standard at the best of times, but in this day and age, where the president elect is happy to post unfounded nonsense about a rigged election, then work really needs to be done to verify results and satisfy people that there is little to no fraud in your democratic processes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
One concern I have here is the phrase "Trump is unqualified to be President". While he may be a massive donkey cave, he does meet the qualifications : one must be 35 years of age, a resident "within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen," a term not defined in the Constitution.

There is a trend even here with right and left both trying to claim the moral high ground (no one has it to be honest) and holding the other in contempt, that is the poison of our situation, an utter lack of respect for each other. I am very guilty of that myself. Granted its not everyone, there are some really class acts here.

I think it is pretty straight forward to respect people who hold different political opinions, while believing Trump is a disaster.

And while I agree with you that there is a tendency for people on both sides to claim some kind of absolute high ground and hold the other side in contempt, that trend doesn't mean that one party isn't actually a lot better than the other.

I take it as a clear reality that the current policy set of the Republican party will lead to fiscal disaster, and the strategies they are employing to gain power are destructive to proper functioning of government. I don't do this to bolster the Democrats or claim them as superior. I don't even much like the Democrats. In ordinary political circumstances I'd probably be a Republican, if they ever returned their party to a normal, centre right position.

So yeah, I recognise your point that there is a lot of moral superiority out there. But there is also another thing going on - a plea to fix start fixing the Republican party because things are still getting worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think part of the problem is, while folks like us can see the trickle-down for what it is, and what the overall damage has been.... there are still publications putting out articles talking about how great everything is. There was a Forbes article (a once respectable publication, now it's basically a right wing economic rag) that basically said that Kansas being in a terrible spot right now, was all a liberal conspiracy, and the proof they offered was that in one fiscal year, Kansas had seen almost double the amount of new small business formation requests (the forms submitted in the state to the state's business bureau)

Yeah, people choose their own realities. Honestly I think you almost give up on the 60 million strong Republican base. Those guys have shown they've bought in so deep they'll vote for Trump. Beating that means getting the Democratic base organised and energetic enough to turn out in stronger numbers, in both presidential elections and mid-terms. Doing that without becoming populist and fact free, a left wing mirror of the Republicans, that will be the challenge.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
One concern I have here is the phrase "Trump is unqualified to be President". While he may be a massive donkey cave, he does meet the qualifications : one must be 35 years of age, a resident "within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen," a term not defined in the Constitution.

There is a trend even here with right and left both trying to claim the moral high ground (no one has it to be honest) and holding the other in contempt, that is the poison of our situation, an utter lack of respect for each other. I am very guilty of that myself. Granted its not everyone, there are some really class acts here.

I think it is pretty straight forward to respect people who hold different political opinions, while believing Trump is a disaster.

And while I agree with you that there is a tendency for people on both sides to claim some kind of absolute high ground and hold the other side in contempt, that trend doesn't mean that one party isn't actually a lot better than the other.

I take it as a clear reality that the current policy set of the Republican party will lead to fiscal disaster, and the strategies they are employing to gain power are destructive to proper functioning of government. I don't do this to bolster the Democrats or claim them as superior. I don't even much like the Democrats. In ordinary political circumstances I'd probably be a Republican, if they ever returned their party to a normal, centre right position.

So yeah, I recognise your point that there is a lot of moral superiority out there. But there is also another thing going on - a plea to fix start fixing the Republican party because things are still getting worse.

I can't agree that one party is better than the other, they both bear a clear and present threat to the republic, the dems are just better at lying about it. There is a lot of problems with the republican party, but there is a lot of that which is essentially media spin. The democrats have a lot of issues and are going even further left, while the republicans need to shift more center, the democrats do as well. Their sense of entitlement cost them what should have been an easy win, anyone they had other than clinton would have beat trump, especially after he chose pence as a running mate. The poison is deep on both sides. That roughly 1/4 of the country supports each side means they both have a seat at the table here.

The democrats need to shift further center?

They are already a center-left party, and a major reason they didn't win is because practical center-left policies don't get people excited, or jive up the Democratic base. The D's haven't moved left at all, it's just that the R's have shifted so far right in the last 12-16 years.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The democrats need to shift further center?

They are already a center-left party, and a major reason they didn't win is because practical center-left policies don't get people excited, or jive up the Democratic base. The D's haven't moved left at all, it's just that the R's have shifted so far right in the last 12-16 years.

I disagree that the GOP as shifted righter...

It may seem like that because of how acrimonious both sides are since the Clinton years.

The Democrats simply need to stop making identity politics their main weapons and go back to the basics. They have a perfect opportunity to rebrand their planks, and make a dent in 2-to-4 years.