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.
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.
Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...
And a recent poll showed that 54 percent of americans believe that the government is hiding the truth about 9/11. Just because they voted doesn't mean they are intelligent in anyway
Frazzled wrote: Its not been altered. You guys just suck. Quit sucking. You have one year to remember how to not suck before local elections start.
Of course it has been altered. Perhaps you should read up on US history and the changes that have been made to presidential elections since the ink was dry on the constitution?
Its like you can't make a post without insulting another poster. Whatevs.
How was that more insulting than your post telling him that "you guys suck?" And drop the feigned outrage act, you've worn it a bit thin.
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."
The Truth shall be reviled! All your secrets are belong to us!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: Because it's a balance. At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state.
And it doesn't, we've been over this. What it does is give all the power to a number of "swing" states.
If you're a 'states representation' honk, you'll like the EC... if, 'states don't matter' crowd... you'll always hate the EC.
If you are a "states representation honk" than you would want the EC as it originally was, not the bastardized one now. So which is it?
Moreover, the EC system is done so that every part of the United States of America some kind of say over the next executive.
Which they have in whatever system we choose. And I did the math a while back (and have posted mutliple times) that popular vote does not allow large states to overpower big states. On the contraty, it gives candidates a reason to campaign in those small states that are ignored through most of the presidential race
It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action. True, most candidates focuses on swings states... but, swing states changes over time. As close as PA, WI and MI was, hopefully that's a clarion call for both parties to hit the 'get out to vote' strategy as those 3 ends up being the new FL/OH swing states.
I think we've seen, especially with the Trump campaign, but also with the Obama and Bush campaigns that it is not that way at all.
Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.
And you have proved my point exactly. If this provides all states a voice, than why are they ignored. Simple answer, it doesn't
'Tis why I keep banging on that 'National vote is meaningless' drum... we don't know what the outcome would be.
Powerless, yes, meaningless, no. When it is as close as Bush V Gore (which was like 100k difference or something, basically non-existent) it's not a good indicator of anything other than a divide. When it is as large as Clinton's (to the point of being larger than some winner's margins), it does indicate that Trump does not have popular support. This doesn't mean he wouldn't have won in a popular vote (although if FPTP was abolished, something we can all agree is kind of gak, as well, he wouldn't have had a chance). I can say with some confidance that the majority of Americans don't want Trump to be president. It's just that many also didn't want Clinton, and a lot of Clinton voters were only brought out through
It's not, by any means, a perfect system... there's a lot to be said for dumping the EC in favor for national vote.
But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.
Certainly it has some good ideas behind it. I don't deny that, merely disagree with it's implementation. And like any system it's flaws appear in time. There is a reason why the founders put in ways to change and improve it, believing (perhaps foolishly) that the people of America would work together for the common good rather than treating it like a holy object. It is currently broken. I, for one, am more in favor of abolishing it. However fixing it is still an option (just not one that anybody seems to have a good solution to).
As for CA... they can certainly lead the way for the rest of the states to apportion by popular vote. Nothing is stopping them from leading the charge.
The charge is already there. And CA is already part of it.
But until they get near 358, it's has no real power. That's the point CA can't do gak until it get's the other states on board. And what with Republicans repeatedly benefiting from it (although I'm not sure if you can call electing Trump a "benefit") and controlling most state houses, I don't see this happening any time soon. Although you never know, there may be a massive democratic push spurred on my Trump's idiocy . Would be nice to complain about a different party ruining American for one at the very least.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Yeah, seems pretty legit to me. I mean, why should they be expected to follow the same rules they ask of others? They are ruli..... majority party. They do what they want!
whembly wrote: At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state.
A task it fails miserably at. Most small states have very little power under the electoral college system because they have few electoral votes and one-sided party loyalty. Wyoming, for example, has zero power under the current system. Its few electoral votes are guaranteed to go to the republican candidate, whoever they happen to be, so nobody has any incentive to campaign there or make any promises to Wyoming's citizens. Same thing with Hawaii, but for the democrats. If you want small states to have a meaningful say in presidential elections then you want a direct national popular vote.
No... my belief that the direct national vote would silence the smaller states even more
.
It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action.
No it doesn't. It forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider the issues that matter to a handful of voters in key states, while ignoring the rest. If I'm a candidate why should I consider what people in Wyoming or Hawaii care about? One is guaranteed to give its electoral votes to me no matter what I do, while the other is guaranteed to give its electoral votes to my opponent no matter what I do.
And a direct national vote will change that?
I think not...
Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.
This doesn't really help your case. A higher turnout in California means even more of a majority for Clinton. The "secure" states for Clinton were the big states, while most of Trump's "secure" states were much smaller.
And? You're not really making counter-argument.
But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.
Only if you continue to ignore the reasons why all of the arguments in favor of it don't actually work.
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.
Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...
And a recent poll showed that 54 percent of americans believe that the government is hiding the truth about 9/11. Just because they voted doesn't mean they are intelligent in anyway
AH... so we should listen to our Elites argument then.
whembly wrote: Because it's a balance. At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state.
And it doesn't, we've been over this. What it does is give all the power to a number of "swing" states.
If you're a 'states representation' honk, you'll like the EC... if, 'states don't matter' crowd... you'll always hate the EC.
If you are a "states representation honk" than you would want the EC as it originally was, not the bastardized one now. So which is it?
Moreover, the EC system is done so that every part of the United States of America some kind of say over the next executive.
Which they have in whatever system we choose. And I did the math a while back (and have posted mutliple times) that popular vote does not allow large states to overpower big states. On the contraty, it gives candidates a reason to campaign in those small states that are ignored through most of the presidential race
It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action. True, most candidates focuses on swings states... but, swing states changes over time. As close as PA, WI and MI was, hopefully that's a clarion call for both parties to hit the 'get out to vote' strategy as those 3 ends up being the new FL/OH swing states.
I think we've seen, especially with the Trump campaign, but also with the Obama and Bush campaigns that it is not that way at all.
Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.
And you have proved my point exactly. If this provides all states a voice, than why are they ignored. Simple answer, it doesn't
'Tis why I keep banging on that 'National vote is meaningless' drum... we don't know what the outcome would be.
Powerless, yes, meaningless, no. When it is as close as Bush V Gore (which was like 100k difference or something, basically non-existent) it's not a good indicator of anything other than a divide. When it is as large as Clinton's (to the point of being larger than some winner's margins), it does indicate that Trump does not have popular support. This doesn't mean he wouldn't have won in a popular vote (although if FPTP was abolished, something we can all agree is kind of gak, as well, he wouldn't have had a chance). I can say with some confidance that the majority of Americans don't want Trump to be president. It's just that many also didn't want Clinton, and a lot of Clinton voters were only brought out through
It's not, by any means, a perfect system... there's a lot to be said for dumping the EC in favor for national vote.
But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.
Certainly it has some good ideas behind it. I don't deny that, merely disagree with it's implementation. And like any system it's flaws appear in time. There is a reason why the founders put in ways to change and improve it, believing (perhaps foolishly) that the people of America would work together for the common good rather than treating it like a holy object. It is currently broken. I, for one, am more in favor of abolishing it. However fixing it is still an option (just not one that anybody seems to have a good solution to).
As for CA... they can certainly lead the way for the rest of the states to apportion by popular vote. Nothing is stopping them from leading the charge.
The charge is already there. And CA is already part of it.
But until they get near 358, it's has no real power. That's the point CA can't do gak until it get's the other states on board. And what with Republicans repeatedly benefiting from it (although I'm not sure if you can call electing Trump a "benefit") and controlling most state houses, I don't see this happening any time soon. Although you never know, there may be a massive democratic push spurred on my Trump's idiocy . Would be nice to complain about a different party ruining American for one at the very least.
:sigh: Can we stop doing this dance?
You don't like the EV... I get it.
It doesn't bother me one whit. So, there's that.
You're more than welcome to engage the political process to affect some change.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/10 00:00:57
whembly wrote: No... my belief that the direct national vote would silence the smaller states even more
That would be very difficult given the fact that they have zero power under the current system. How do you silence smaller states even more by allowing their voters to have a small, but non-zero effect on the outcome of the election?
And a direct national vote will change that?
I think not...
Of course it will change that! Currently a voter in Wyoming has zero power. There is no point in spending even the slightest bit of effort appealing to them because their state's electoral votes will go to whoever the republican candidate is. Under a national popular vote Wyoming still suffers from low population density and a higher cost to reach the same number of voters, but those voters are now in play for both sides. If I'm a democrat and I've already campaigned California to death and reached the point of diminishing returns it's now worth it to spend some effort on Wyoming, because even if I only get 15% of the state's votes that's still more votes added to my total. And it's still more than the 0% return I would get under the current system.
And? You're not really making counter-argument.
No, you're just not understanding it. The counter-argument is that the most likely difference between the current system and a hypothetical direct popular vote is that Clinton wins by a larger margin. So saying "the popular vote in 2016 doesn't count, it would have been different if the rules changed" is not a compelling response to the fact that more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
Just as you ignore the reasons why it works.
I haven't ignored anything. In fact, I've just explained why the "reasons why it works" are incorrect. You, on the other hand, keep ignoring all the explanations of why the electoral college doesn't help small states and why a direct popular vote would give small states more power in favor of repeating "BUT SMALL STATES" over and over again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/10 00:02:22
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.
whembly wrote: No... my belief that the direct national vote would silence the smaller states even more
That would be very difficult given the fact that they have zero power under the current system. How do you silence smaller states even more by allowing their voters to have a small, but non-zero effect on the outcome of the election?
And a direct national vote will change that?
I think not...
Of course it will change that! Currently a voter in Wyoming has zero power. There is no point in spending even the slightest bit of effort appealing to them because their state's electoral votes will go to whoever the republican candidate is. Under a national popular vote Wyoming still suffers from low population density and a higher cost to reach the same number of voters, but those voters are now in play for both sides. If I'm a democrat and I've already campaigned California to death and reached the point of diminishing returns it's now worth it to spend some effort on Wyoming, because even if I only get 15% of the state's votes that's still more votes added to my total. And it's still more than the 0% return I would get under the current system.
And? You're not really making counter-argument.
No, you're just not understanding it. The counter-argument is that the most likely difference between the current system and a hypothetical direct popular vote is that Clinton wins by a larger margin. So saying "the popular vote in 2016 doesn't count, it would have been different if the rules changed" is not a compelling response to the fact that more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
Just as you ignore the reasons why it works.
I haven't ignored anything. In fact, I've just explained why the "reasons why it works" are incorrect. You, on the other hand, keep ignoring all the explanations of why the electoral college doesn't help small states and why a direct popular vote would give small states more power in favor of repeating "BUT SMALL STATES" over and over again.
Since we're going 'round here, I'll repeat myself:
You don't like the EV... I get it.
It doesn't bother me one whit. So, there's that.
You're more than welcome to engage the political process to affect some change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/10 00:04:54
I am not opposed to something similar to the EC (would rather popular, but I'll take what I can get). But the EC as it is now is broken. It doesn't make small states matter more, and I can get out the math again (that I have posted for you about five times now) showing that, because of how big states are politically, they don't overpower the smaller ones, and you still need them to win. Plus, you admitted yourself that the small states only have a voice if they are a swing state. It does not do the single good thing that you hold it up for. So why do you keep defending it? Push for it to be fixed, sure, but stop pretending like it isn't broken.
And engaging with the political process is exactly what I'm doing. I'm convincing people and trying to get people on my side.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/10 00:07:17
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: Since we're going 'round here, I'll repeat myself:
You don't like the EV... I get it.
It doesn't bother me one whit. So, there's that.
You're more than welcome to engage the political process to affect some change.
IOW: "I have no response to the points you've made, but instead of conceding defeat on the issue I'm going to hide behind 'let's agree to disagree' until the next time this comes up." This is exactly why people get frustrated with you and your blatant "My Team is always right!" partisanship.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/10 00:10:49
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.
I am not opposed to something similar to the EC (would rather popular, but I'll take what I can get). But the EC as it is now is broken. It doesn't make small states matter more, and I can get out the math again (that I have posted for you about five times now) showing that, because of how big states are politically, they don't overpower the smaller ones, and you still need them to win. Plus, you admitted yourself that the small states only have a voice if they are a swing state. It does not do the single good thing that you hold it up for. So why do you keep defending it? Push for it to be fixed, sure, but stop pretending like it isn't broken.
And engaging with the political process is exactly what I'm doing. I'm convincing people and trying to get people on my side.
It's not 'broken' in the sense that nothing's changed in prior Presidential elections.
Keep in mind that this was a perfect storm. If there were a 'not-Clinton' on the Democrat side, then that person would've likely prevailed over Trump.
If there were a a 'not-Trump' on the Republican side, then that person would've likely prevailed over Clinton (well... maybe not Carson ).
Yet, under these same rules, Trump won over Clinton, and "now" it's broken?
You "math" is still based on conjecture because you do NOT know how voters would behave under a direct national vote. Don't you see that?
Trump is a scumbag and a boorish blowhard. We'll survive Trump just like we did in past Presidencies.
whembly wrote: Since we're going 'round here, I'll repeat myself:
You don't like the EV... I get it.
It doesn't bother me one whit. So, there's that.
You're more than welcome to engage the political process to affect some change.
IOW: "I have no response to the points you've made, but instead of conceding defeat on the issue I'm going to hide behind 'let's agree to disagree' until the next time this comes up." This is exactly why people get frustrated with you and your blatant "My Team is always right!" partisanship.
We've had this argument... do you want me to go back to our posts and copy/paste it?
My frustration with you is in part that Democrats (and in particular Obama) can do no wrong and Republicans are literally Hitler.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/10 00:26:25
Whembly, stop copy pasting responses that aren't relevant to the discussion you are having with a user. If you're going to ignore what users post and respond like you are, then just have a break. What you are doing at the moment is barely on topic it's so far removed from what they're saying.
That goes for everyone, make sure you are actually responding to the users you are talking to. To not do so is a) adding nothing to this (trainwreck of a) thread and b) is rude.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that this was a perfect storm.
No, it really isn't a perfect storm. Remember, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the electoral vote. That's twice in the past 20 years that the president got fewer votes than their opponent, so the idea that this is a "perfect storm" that we don't have to worry about in the future simply does not match reality.
You "math" is still based on conjecture because you do NOT know how voters would behaving under a direct national vote. Don't you see that?
We also aren't completely ignorant of how people will vote. We can make reasonable predictions about how they will vote, and talk about the most likely outcomes. The fact that we can't know these things with absolute 100% certainty doesn't mean that we should give up and assume that the outcome is completely random and unpredictable (or, in your case, whatever makes Your Team right).
Trump is a scumbag and a boorish blowhard. We'll survive Trump just like we did in past Presidencies.
That isn't the point. Even if we survive Trump (for definitions of "we" that emphasize being white, straight, male, and wealthy) the electoral college is still a broken system. Trump just demonstrates that the system isn't even pretending to acknowledge the original intent of stopping a popular and charismatic but obviously unqualified candidate from becoming president. If the electoral college isn't going to overrule the voters and reject Trump then it is never going to overrule the voters and it is a redundant relic of a very different era.
My frustration with you is in part that Democrats (and in particular Obama) can do no wrong and Republicans are literally Hitler.
Ah, so now we've reached the "blatant lying" part of the conversation. I have criticized Obama and the democrats, so please stop making stuff up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/10 00:30:31
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.
motyak wrote: Whembly, stop copy pasting responses that aren't relevant to the discussion you are having with a user. If you're going to ignore what users post and respond like you are, then just have a break. What you are doing at the moment is barely on topic it's so far removed from what they're saying.
That goes for everyone, make sure you are actually responding to the users you are talking to. To not do so is a) adding nothing to this (trainwreck of a) thread and b) is rude.
Will do..
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I am not opposed to something similar to the EC (would rather popular, but I'll take what I can get). But the EC as it is now is broken. It doesn't make small states matter more, and I can get out the math again (that I have posted for you about five times now) showing that, because of how big states are politically, they don't overpower the smaller ones, and you still need them to win. Plus, you admitted yourself that the small states only have a voice if they are a swing state. It does not do the single good thing that you hold it up for. So why do you keep defending it? Push for it to be fixed, sure, but stop pretending like it isn't broken.
And engaging with the political process is exactly what I'm doing. I'm convincing people and trying to get people on my side.
It's not 'broken' in the sense that nothing's changed in prior Presidential elections.
Keep in mind that this was a perfect storm. If there were a 'not-Clinton' on the Democrat side, then that person would've likely prevailed over Trump.
If there were a a 'not-Trump' on the Republican side, then that person would've likely prevailed over Clinton (well... maybe not Carson ).
Yet, under these same rules, Trump won over Clinton, and "now" it's broken?
You "math" is still based on conjecture because you do NOT know how voters would behave under a direct national vote. Don't you see that?
Trump is a scumbag and a boorish blowhard. We'll survive Trump just like we did in past Presidencies.
It's always been broken, just not completely. I've said it repeatedly, no matter who wins, no matter who gets an advantage it's broken and I will fight against it. If it was that case that no Democrat would ever be elected again if we went to the popular vote, I'd still push for it. You know why? Because it's not "my side" winning that matters. I don't even have a side. It's representation that matters.
And my math does matter, because it still works when you look at non-national elections or simple partisan split. The difference in party enrollment in solid blue NY is 25 points. And NY is only really "blue" in national elections, our senate has been republican controlled for years, and there are a lot of republican up-state (who largely don't vote because it's pointless). And there is also that point, which you have yet to address, that the EC does not, in fact, give small states more voice, but only swing states. It doesn't take power away from the big states and give it to the small states, it takes power away from everybody and gives it to swing states. And it disenfranchises all those who don't live in states (such as the DoC, Peurto Rico, ect). If you want to prioritize states over people, sure but the EC doesn't even do that.
And I'm not so worried about Trump, he is constrained by our system and his own incompetence (although I sure as hell will be pushing my representatives to quell his BS). I'll be pushing this every year, and every time it gets brought up, no matter who wins. This year has just exacerbated it because of how extreme an example it is.
Also:
My frustration with you is in part that Democrats (and in particular Obama) can do no wrong and Republicans are literally Hitler.
Although this is not directed at me, I have a point to make. In some ways the Republican party is "literally Hitler" (although not literally Hitler). Can you not see the things they have done and have stood for that make people blanch at supporting them. The endless stream of profits over people economics, the pushing of religion into private life, the extremist and dog-whistle politics. The choosing of fething Donald Trump as their candidate. The opposing of civil rights, such as those for the LGBTQ+ community. The pushes against science and the environment. The prioritization of tax cuts for the wealthiest among, who have no need for them, while slashing safety net programs that help those left behind in our society, and at the same time proclaiming to be the party of morals.
This is not to say they do not have some good things, promotion of free enterprise, fiscal conservatism (and I mean actual fiscal conservatism, not "double the military budget and buy tanks they neither want not need, but slash everything else"), and promotion of freedom from government interference in your person lives. Unfortunately, these things can barley be seen at all in the modern Republican party. I support the Democratic party, not because I agree with them or think the are perfect, but because I have nowhere else to go. The Republican party is a shadow of what it could be, and appears to be directly against the ideals I hold dear, equality for all, taking care of those without the ability to do so, and leaving the country better for all people, not just ourselves.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Rosebuddy wrote: I brought up the ME not because I think the US will invade Russia but as an example of the US acting without concern for the consequences and events therefore spiralling out of control and causing terrible misery. The sanctions against Iraq were awful and I very much doubt that they can be wielded with pin-point accuracy so that a collapsing economy has no real effect upon the Russian people.
The sanction regime against Iraq was extreme and onerous, but also nothing at all like the sanction regime in place against Russia. Arguing that one sanction regime was harsh therefore all sanctions regimes are harsh is nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Magister wrote: People are the economy though - they pay for services, get paid for service and ultimately get taxed on what they earn. Collapsing an economy can do nothing but affect the normal person surely?
The point is that the only person talking about collapsing the economy. That's just something Rosebud has made up, because his imagination is impressive but his reading comprehension lets him down quite a lot.
The sanctions in place in Russia aren't collapsing their economy. Russia isn't going to fall over tomorrow. The sanctions are targeted at the oligarchs and their companies, through the simple measure of actually saying 'this person and this company can't move money around here, or sell products here, nor will we sell capital equipment to them'. When Rosneft can't access its offshore holding then Rosneft feels the pinch, the granny in her Moscow flat isn't affected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I have a better idea. Trade with people we can trade beneficially with, don't with the ones we can't, and be a good civic partner with the other nations of the world via the UN.
So when Russia invades Crimea, sends troops in to the Ukraine, and bombs civilians in Syria... your answer is to keep on trading with them? fething wow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Keep it going... it's attutides like this that's the downfall of your team D.
You keep talking about downfall and I keep explaining to you the cyclical nature of US politics. Remember the 'downfall' of Republican politics in 2008?
Instead, once we recognise that on the whole each party gets a turn with the presidency every 8 years, lets talk about how that's worked for the Demcocrats and Republicans. Democrats have used their last two turns to elect Bill Clinon and Barack Obama. Republicans have used their last two turns to elect GW Bush and now Donald Trump.
Perhaps you and your Republican party should spend less time worrying about winning, and more time making sure you that when you do win you elect a president who isn't a buffoon?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: I think it might be in part due to the massive post-WW2 economic boom. *shrug*
That is likely a cause of the particularly high living standards that allowed working class people in the US to have middle class lives, but it is not an explanation for the rise of the middle class at large, a process that began before WWI.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Gerrymandering is this convenient scapegoat and the truth is more complicated than that. The biggest issue that i think everyone can agree on are redistricting activities that helps the current incumbent.... which is not solely a Republican thing.
Both sides gerrymander, but it takes an act of wilful delusion to pretend that gerrymandering isn't favouring the Republican party much more than Democrats.
In three years, if the 'D team' doesn't start winning back some local elections, then they'll be in a world of hurt. This is a call to moderate and get their gak together.
Giggle.
Furthermore, we've had 51 "popular vote" across the country. These are the rules for which the President is elected. These are the same rules that got Obama elected... Bill Clinton elected. These sames rules for which Clinton LOST.
So, blaming her lost because the game is rigged or that 'gerrymanding' somehow is a major factor is ignoring the reasons why she lost.
It isn't about 'blaming' anything, but properly assessing the state of play.
The Republican party has a lot of power right now, but it isn't build on dominant electoral performances. This isn't 1984 Reagan we're talking about here, this is a party with at best half of the vote, who managed to squeak ahead in just enough elections.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.
There's a lot to be said for a federalist system that gives additional weighting to smaller states to ensure they have a say in the presidency.
The reality is that you don't have that system. You have a system that tried to do that, and failed. It failed because in allowing states to decide the allocation of EC votes themselves, they each move to winner takes all, which means any state that can't swing in a close election becomes irrelevant to the presidential process.
There are fixes that can be done. They are simple in concept, but difficult in practice, mostly because too many people fail to understand the EC, or put their head in the sand because they don't understand the difference between cheering for a team and talking about the rules.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/01/10 04:16:29
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Refocusing for a second I saw an analysis on the reddit political discussion page (no, I don't do anything else with my life ) of gubernatorial races coming up in the next four years, and would love to hear your guy's takes on the states you are in.
CrabAche • 1d
OK! Here's a personal ranking from most likely to be Democrat to a Republican:
DC - lol
Hawaii - yeah, Ige is popular (despite not doing anything) and the Hawaii GOP have flat out collapsed.
Oregon - Brown seems to have settled herself in, despite her ... Unorthodox mode of entry. Oregon GOP completely fluffed the last few years.
California - OK this may drop if something really bizarre goes on the weirdo primary they have, in which case Falconer may take it. Otherwise... Prably that slimey weirdo Newsom will win, although maybe Chiang will make the run-off.
Edit: New York: forgot about this. Cuomo set to run again, and seems to be protecting himsrlg from a primary challenge by AG Scheiderman given his underwhelming performance in 2014. Watch out for Preet Bharara who wants to add Cuomo to his trophy collection.
New Jersey - if the Dems don't take this back, they should honestly disband. It is funny how the frontrunner is literally a Goldman Sachs guy. Can you say Corzine 2.0?
Maine - probably due to swing back to Dems by now, unless Collins for some reason enters. This is a weird state, and I don't know who wants to deal with LePage's detritus.
Virginia - both Dem candidates are easily favoured in the environment, although I don't know which is best suited for Virginia nowadays. I prefer Tom.
Nevada - Harry reid's machine wants this seat back, and now that Heller has cold feet; I'm pretty sure this will be a pick-up.
New Mexico - popular Albuquerque Mayor Berry would be a good recruit for Republicans, but partisan gravity keeps this strongly Dem leaning after Martinez bows out.
Colorado - hickenlooper's term is up. Colorado has really drastically changed in the past few years - notably even Mark Udall doing a disastrously inept senate race against GOP superstar Gardner in 2014 (!) was only narrowly defeated. And Salazar is a very good probable candidate, although there may be more progressive battles (mainly around fracking).
Minnesota - swung pretty bad this year, but Dayton is popular and the MN GOP infamously incompetent. DFL needs to recruit in rural areas though - they had a right scare in the HoR, and really need to get back the legislature.
Rhode Island - Raimondo is not well liked and could face a challenge from her left by Pell (son of the guy who made Pell Grants) or from the right. Potential sleeper pick-up for GOP.
Alaska - cryptoDem Walker is reasonably popular because he is against the Alaska establishment (this state has notoriously bizarre politics). Could be ousted due to oil price hijinks though.
New Hampshire - Sununu is rather untested, so this could go all sorts of ways; but New Hampshire often makes very dramatic swings against incumbent governments.
Pennsylvania - wolf has mediocre approval races, but isn't doomed or anything. Pennsylvania likes incumbents, until they ditched Corbett in 2014.
Michigan - a keep pick-up for Dems. I genuinely have no idea who will run for either party, but I expect in a true neutral year this would be a very close toss-up. If it starts to veer towards the Dems in 2018, they could be in for a good night.
Florida - the Florida Democratic Party is the worst swing state party in the country. No sugar coating it - it's up there with the Colorado GOP. I assume Graham will be the candidate, and she did win a tricky House race in 2014 - but so did Murphy lol. If Paul Ryan feths with SS and Medicare too much, this is where we'll know.
Illinois - some people seem to think Rauner is doomed. I'm sceptical, as the Democrats (I.e. Mike Madigan) don't have a great rep, but he is definitely an underdog. Kelly would be a recruit for Dems.
Connecticut - by far the GOPs best pick up chance. I assume Malloy will retire, and there will be a great pile-up. In a true neutral year, I think the GOP will narrowly take this away, although they came short in the great year for the GOP that was 2014, so whatever.
Iowa - will Bransted retire? I think so, and his Lt Gov who is very keen will probably run. She'd be a slight favourite - the democratic bench was, err, eviscerated by Bruce Braley and Hillary.
Wisconsin - this should be higher on this list. In a rational world, Scott Walker - very unpopular, incredibly inept and embarrassing on a national scale and saddled with lousy economic metrics - should lose. However he is favoured, because Wisconsin Dems are really spiralling out of control. Maybe if Tammy Baldwin makes a really good pitch of reelection, the Dem will be dragged along with her.
Kansas - brownback was a huge mistake, who was only dragged past the finishing line in 2014 because of the cash influx from the surprise competition of the Orman-Roberts race. If Dems make a decent case, this would be a good GOP area to penetrate
Ohio - if a kasichite wins the primary, this will be even better for the GOP. This state is harder and harder for Dems to crack, so this would be a good test to the extent that the rot has set in. This will be flush with cash from the Sherrod Brown race, and may take on an outsize role in the media analysis.
Arizona - Ducey is ... Not popular, but the winning coalition for Dems in this state is very hard to assemble, especially in midterms.
Georgia - eh, should be easier without the run-off.
Mass, Vermont, Maryland - lazily joining all these states together to say their GOP candidates are very much favoured, and it's quite likely the Dems will barely even try to put up a top challenger. If there are competitive races here, the two years from now must have gone very rough for the GOP.
Nebraska - supposedly Ricketts isn't too popular, but whatever. It's Nebraska.
South Dakota, Oklahoma, idaho, Wyoming - any of these states could be the "Maryland 2014" of 2018 I.e. Am open race nobody cared about until it was randomly won by somebody nobody had ever heard of. These are all commodity states, so may be dependent on that odd quirk of world markets.
South Carolina - Haley is now part of the trump cabinet, in a role she is in no way qualified for. I would put this higher, but it will have an "incumbent" (and a very Trumpian one at that). Shaheen kept this close in 2010, but SC is very much fools gold unless trump has really pissed off educated whites or vets.
Tennessee - the TN GOP is very moderate, the TN Dems nonexistent.
Alabama - open seat, scandal plagued GOP - but still, it's Alabama.
Arkansas - well liked incumbent, non-existent opposition
Texas - same with the last, except in a more expensive and impenetrable media market that doesn't take kindly to scrappy underdog campaigns.
In other words, in a great year (2006 wave) I'd expect them to pick up Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico and Florida easily and then go on to take some of Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, Georgia and whatever wild cards exist out west.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment
I doubt if it's any comfort to you guys, but I'll highlight the fact that our voting system is almost as bad as yours.
At the last election, the SNP (my party) got 1 million votes and 56 seats in Parliament
UKIP got 4 million votes and only 1 Parliament seat
UKIP is a party I despise, but I'm a democrat at the end of the day, and this was a very raw deal for them, but because of our FPTP system, it's all legal.
So yeah, gakky political systems are not unique to the USA.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Hacking is a big problem. The Sony hack is the least of it. How about 30 million people are being hacked, everybody in government is being hacked, and we're worried about the St. Louis Cardinals hacking the Houston team? In the meantime, China and/or Russia or both and probably other countries are hacking 30 million people
Any actress you love?
Julia Roberts is terrific, and many others. Meryl Streep is excellent; she's a fine person, too. The problem is I'll name three or four or five and then the hundred that I know will be insulted, and I don't mean to insult them.
..how times change eh ?
next thing you know cabinet level appointments will be simply waved through, no "worries" if any of them were..say.. paid by NK
or doing business with Iran whilst the country was under US sanctions.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Ustrello wrote: Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment
The rolling non-budget is just wracking up debt that will never fething get paid.
My wife and I are considering a move 10 miles North to Wisconsin. I hate this broke ass state.
Ustrello wrote: Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment
The rolling non-budget is just wracking up debt that will never fething get paid.
My wife and I are considering a move 10 miles North to Wisconsin. I hate this broke ass state.
Not the first person I have heard that from. We have had several people and their families locate down here to Atlanta from Chicago within the last few months.
Ustrello wrote: Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment
The rolling non-budget is just wracking up debt that will never fething get paid.
My wife and I are considering a move 10 miles North to Wisconsin. I hate this broke ass state.
Keep driving north - a new country awaits, and the joy of having Queen Elizabeth as your head of state could be yours.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ohio is a weird place. Kasich seems at times to try and play the moderate, vetoing the six week abortion ban, but he sometimes goes off into lalaland, championing charter schools which if I recall correctly are being investigated for corruption.
His run for the president was a little sad, it was like watching an adult sit at the kiddie table and try to have a reasonable conversation.
lonestarr777 wrote: Ohio is a weird place. Kasich seems at times to try and play the moderate, vetoing the six week abortion ban, but he sometimes goes off into lalaland, championing charter schools which if I recall correctly are being investigated for corruption.
His run for the president was a little sad, it was like watching an adult sit at the kiddie table and try to have a reasonable conversation.
Kasich was my boy! I voted for him in the primary and he would have had my POTUS vote if he could have gotten his message out through all the Trump-eting...having a GOP base that seems more easily distracted by shiny things than a Chihuahua didn't help either. He was the only candidate with the gravitas and experience to be POTUS in that motley group of fools, IMHO. Now, just feth!
Ustrello wrote: Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment
The rolling non-budget is just wracking up debt that will never fething get paid.
My wife and I are considering a move 10 miles North to Wisconsin. I hate this broke ass state.
Keep driving north - a new country awaits, and the joy of having Queen Elizabeth as your head of state could be yours.
Lived there, done that! Loved it! Hated the taxes!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/10 14:41:20
This is not to say they do not have some good things, promotion of free enterprise, fiscal conservatism (and I mean actual fiscal conservatism, not "double the military budget and buy tanks they neither want not need, but slash everything else"), and promotion of freedom from government interference in your person lives. Unfortunately, these things can barley be seen at all in the modern Republican party. I support the Democratic party, not because I agree with them or think the are perfect, but because I have nowhere else to go. The Republican party is a shadow of what it could be, and appears to be directly against the ideals I hold dear, equality for all, taking care of those without the ability to do so, and leaving the country better for all people, not just ourselves.
I honestly do not think that the Republican Party itself is actually the fiscal conservative party. As you point out, they have had a tendency, both in recent modern times, and further back in their history as well, been the party of over-spending, slashing good programs for idiotic reasons, and blaming the "other" for the problems created by the cuts.
But then again, we're talking about a party that loves to send troops off to "war," but balks at the price tags we come back with.
Looks like Cory Booker has his eyes on 2020, trying to make his name known now (testifying against Sessions).
Years of constant attention whoring worked for Ted Cruz, we'll see if works for Booker.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/10 15:39:48
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
The sanction regime against Iraq was extreme and onerous, but also nothing at all like the sanction regime in place against Russia. Arguing that one sanction regime was harsh therefore all sanctions regimes are harsh is nonsense.
You brought the sanctions against Iraq up as an example of sanctions being able to "grind" a country:
Hitting a country with sanctions doesn't tear it apart. With sanctions that are long enough and hard enough you can grind it, ie Iraq over the 90s. And even that's optional, as the right sanctions can even control who gets impacted - for instance hitting Russia with oil and NG sanctions can hurt the oligarchs, while causing little harm to the poor who are very far removed from the flow of petrodollars.
and I point out that they had a terrible impact on the Iraqi people, using these sanctions as a general example of what can happen when you try to shut down a country's economy and block imports of goods and medicine.
sebster wrote: The point is that the only person talking about collapsing the economy. That's just something Rosebud has made up, because his imagination is impressive but his reading comprehension lets him down quite a lot.
You were the first person to say that the sanctions have crashed the economy.
Rosebuddy wrote: Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power?
Continue and expand the economic sanctions already in place, which have already crashed the Russian economy. Holy fething gak how is that even a question.
Continuing and expanding sanctions that you say have "already crashed" the economy would reasonably be expected to collapse it.
A country's economy being brought not just to crash but past the point of crashing would, again reasonably, be expected to have mainly an impact on the general population. The powerful can much more easily insulate themselves.
That you don't care to extrapolate the courses of action you suggest and consider what consequences they may have is on you and does not mean that I am a feeble-minded dolt with a feverish imagination.
“Sessions, sir, kindly return this Asian baby to the Toys 'R' Us you stole her from,” Mr. Madison quipped. “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans,” he wrote in a followup tweet.
As Business Insider reported Tuesday, “The child is Sessions’ biological granddaughter. His family had accompanied him to his confirmation hearing.”
After deleting his tweet, Mr. Madison defended himself by tweeting, “I often tell jokes, but seeing as bringing up Sessions’ history of racial hatred of Asians is seen as an attack on his grandchild, I deleted[.]”
And liberals honestly cannot understand why Trump was elected.
).
