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.
whembly wrote: ...when Democrats take of the House next year (they will)
Yeah, and you also said Clinton was gonna win easily. Democrats don't win and peg back this clown show unless they turn up to vote. They didn't in 2016 and that's the only reason Bozzo the Tangerine is making the US an international punchline.
I know you're never going to admit defeat, but I just want to highlight this for the benefit of anyone doubting the claim that you don't (or can't) argue in good faith, or that US conservativism is a broken ideology.
When called on the double standard of saying "it's hubris to say that a few self-appointed experts are more important than the collective wisdom of the people" while simultaneously arguing that a few self-appointed experts are more important than the collective wisdom of the people (as long as you call them "founding fathers") you respond by simply repeating that you believe this, and then some unrelated statements that the system exists. No justification of founding father worship, only insistence that they must be right because Your Team worships the founding fathers.
When called on the hypocrisy of your party claiming to be in favor of small government bound by the explicitly stated powers granted by the constitution but passing laws regulating bathroom use your response is literally "okay", after first attempting to handwave away the claim as an "overreaction" because it's inconvenient for you. No defense, not even a concession of defeat, just handwaving away the argument because you don't want to admit that Your Team's actions are not consistent with your supposed values (or that your values consist of little more than "the government should do only the things I want to have").
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/31 17:31:35
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: GOP hasn't changed the filibuster rules on budgets. So, any budgets (in traditional sense) will still need 60 votes to pass clotures.
So is that why the US is still without a budget?
Partly... but, I think it's mostly because there's no appetite to fight the Democrats over spending. Hence they wait the last minutes to pass the "Must Pass" Omnibus bills.
The Dems in senate are filibustering?
Not at the moment.
There's a finite amount of time and the Senate prioritizes other things over passing budgets the right way.
I'm not a fan of that, as passing budgets is like the most fundamental things Congress does... but, I understand the rationale.
So the Dems are not, but they might, so the GOP shouldn't even try?
Right... if Ryan and McConnell get every GOP politician to vote "ya" and Senate democrat threaten to say "no" (and Schumer, et. el. has been screaming no)... would it be smart for McConnell to go through with the process just to get Democrats to stop it from a getting vote by refusing to provide the 60th cloture vote? Where McConnell can use the allotted time, instead, to confirm more judges and political appointees, as that doesn't require cloture votes at all. You can see the rationale... yes?
whembly wrote: ...when Democrats take of the House next year (they will)
Yeah, and you also said Clinton was gonna win easily. Democrats don't win and peg back this clown show unless they turn up to vote. They didn't in 2016 and that's the only reason Bozzo the Tangerine is making the US an international punchline.
Well... yeah, the conventional wisdom was that Clinton *would* win easily. Me and just about everyone else got that wrong.
Not sure 2016 dynamic applies to midterms though... as Trump isn't on the ballot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 18:01:39
whembly wrote: ...when Democrats take of the House next year (they will)
Yeah, and you also said Clinton was gonna win easily. Democrats don't win and peg back this clown show unless they turn up to vote. They didn't in 2016 and that's the only reason Bozzo the Tangerine is making the US an international punchline.
Not voting certainly didn't help, but I think we can also apportion a certain amount of blame to the people who actually nominated, campaigned for, voted for, and continue to enable him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/31 18:07:54
Just let it be known that I've tried to answer you point by point, and yet you resort to a FIFY tactic because you don't want to respond. And yet, you accuse me of arguing in bad faith.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I know you're never going to admit defeat, but I just want to highlight this for the benefit of anyone doubting the claim that you don't (or can't) argue in good faith, or that US conservativism is a broken ideology.
When called on the double standard of saying "it's hubris to say that a few self-appointed experts are more important than the collective wisdom of the people" while simultaneously arguing that a few self-appointed experts are more important than the collective wisdom of the people (as long as you call them "founding fathers") you respond by simply repeating that you believe this, and then some unrelated statements that the system exists. No justification of founding father worship, only insistence that they must be right because Your Team worships the founding fathers.
Please re-read what I responded to you. You're erroneously projecting here....
When called on the hypocrisy of your party claiming to be in favor of small government bound by the explicitly stated powers granted by the constitution but passing laws regulating bathroom use your response is literally "okay", after first attempting to handwave away the claim as an "overreaction" because it's inconvenient for you. No defense, not even a concession of defeat, just handwaving away the argument because you don't want to admit that Your Team's actions are not consistent with your supposed values (or that your values consist of little more than "the government should do only the things I want to have").
My "okay" was agreeing with you there.
Look, no one's perfect.
No ideology/movement is perfect. It's very rare that an individual's beliefs and principle will line up exactly to a Merriam-Webster definition.
It's rather a bore, but I can't help once again pointing out the fact that 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
That is 2% of the votes cast.
Every time someone blames the election of Trump on the Democrats not voting enthusiastically enough, remember that statistic, and remember that Trump actually is the result of a system that is biased towards conservatism.
whembly wrote: ...when Democrats take of the House next year (they will)
Yeah, and you also said Clinton was gonna win easily. Democrats don't win and peg back this clown show unless they turn up to vote. They didn't in 2016 and that's the only reason Bozzo the Tangerine is making the US an international punchline.
Not voting certainly didn't help, but I think we can also apportion a certain amount of blame to the people who actually nominated, campaigned for, voted for, and continue to enable him.
Please don't get me wrong in excusing those who voted for the corpulent orangutan from their role in the debacle. But in spite of what Donnie the nitwit says, those who voted for him were nothing exceptional and no less than what would be expected to be seen by those voting along party lines. Unthinking fealty is something the Republican party relies upon. The Democrats are unable to rely upon such partisan support.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's rather a bore, but I can't help once again pointing out the fact that 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
That is 2% of the votes cast.
Every time someone blames the election of Trump on the Democrats not voting enthusiastically enough, remember that statistic, and remember that Trump actually is the result of a system that is biased towards conservatism.
I can't help but to point out that the overall popular vote is meaningless right now... outside of the NPV proposal some states are trying to achieve.
If anything, it's more fair to say that he won 30 (+ ME 02 district) individual state's popular vote to Clinton's 20 (+DC) states.
I know ya'll probably don't want to rehash the merits/demerits of the Electoral College... but there’s a strong federalist argument. In a polarized and divided nation, respecting self-governance and state sovereignty becomes even more important, not less. So long as state governments respect fundamental constitutional rights, let California be California and let Colorado be Colorado. As a resident of Missouri, I’m happy to observe the results of their social, legal, and cultural experiments from a distance. As such, the Electoral College reflects the compact between states when electing the potus.
whembly wrote: ...when Democrats take of the House next year (they will)
Yeah, and you also said Clinton was gonna win easily. Democrats don't win and peg back this clown show unless they turn up to vote. They didn't in 2016 and that's the only reason Bozzo the Tangerine is making the US an international punchline.
Not voting certainly didn't help, but I think we can also apportion a certain amount of blame to the people who actually nominated, campaigned for, voted for, and continue to enable him.
Please don't get me wrong in excusing those who voted for the corpulent orangutan from their role in the debacle. But in spite of what Donnie the nitwit says, those who voted for him were nothing exceptional and no less than what would be expected to be seen by those voting along party lines. Unthinking fealty is something the Republican party relies upon. The Democrats are unable to rely upon such partisan support.
That is FOS statement. Democrats get around 85% of all minority votes automatically - that is called loyalty. There are a lot more independents voting republican these days. That's not loyalty. That is reps winning more up for grabs voters because they have a more desirable platform.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Democratic Lead Expands Once Independent Leanings Taken Into Account
Most people who initially identify as independents will express a "leaning" toward one of the major parties if probed. Gallup has asked independents for their party leanings consistently since 1991. In addition to the 29% of Americans who identify as Democrats, another 18% initially identify as independents but when asked say they lean toward the Democratic Party, resulting in a combined 47% of Democratic identifiers and leaners. Meanwhile, 42% of Americans identify as Republicans (27%) or are Republican-leaning independents (15%).
The five-point Democratic advantage in this combined measure of party affiliation was the same in 2017 as in 2016, but higher than the three-point Democratic leads in 2014 and 2015. Since 1991, the average has been a five-point Democratic edge. The record high for Democrats was 12 points in 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected president -- replacing George W. Bush, whose popularity was low amid the ongoing Iraq War and an economic recession. The high for Republicans was a four-point GOP advantage in 1991, the year George H.W. Bush presided over a quick and decisive U.S. victory in the Gulf War.
Democrats' advantage in leaned party affiliation appears to be expanding, as it was six points (46% to 40%) in the fourth quarter of 2017 compared with four points in both the second and third quarters. Gallup found similar Democratic gains late in the year in an analysis of monthly data from its daily tracking survey.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017, 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican.
The 8-percentage-point Democratic advantage in leaned partisan identification is wider than at any point since 2009, and a statistically significant shift since 2016, when Democrats had a 4-point edge (48% to 44%). The analysis in this report draws on more than 10,000 interviews with registered voters in 2017 and tens of thousands of interviews conducted in previous years (see Methodology for additional detail).
They differ slightly, but all hand it to the Democrats when it comes to independents.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 19:36:52
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Democratic Lead Expands Once Independent Leanings Taken Into Account
Most people who initially identify as independents will express a "leaning" toward one of the major parties if probed. Gallup has asked independents for their party leanings consistently since 1991. In addition to the 29% of Americans who identify as Democrats, another 18% initially identify as independents but when asked say they lean toward the Democratic Party, resulting in a combined 47% of Democratic identifiers and leaners. Meanwhile, 42% of Americans identify as Republicans (27%) or are Republican-leaning independents (15%).
The five-point Democratic advantage in this combined measure of party affiliation was the same in 2017 as in 2016, but higher than the three-point Democratic leads in 2014 and 2015. Since 1991, the average has been a five-point Democratic edge. The record high for Democrats was 12 points in 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected president -- replacing George W. Bush, whose popularity was low amid the ongoing Iraq War and an economic recession. The high for Republicans was a four-point GOP advantage in 1991, the year George H.W. Bush presided over a quick and decisive U.S. victory in the Gulf War.
Democrats' advantage in leaned party affiliation appears to be expanding, as it was six points (46% to 40%) in the fourth quarter of 2017 compared with four points in both the second and third quarters. Gallup found similar Democratic gains late in the year in an analysis of monthly data from its daily tracking survey.
Cough Cough what?
With that data you'd really expect the dems would have won with those numbers no?
Point still stands about loyalty. Dems get the minority vote automatically.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/31 19:38:24
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017, 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican.
The 8-percentage-point Democratic advantage in leaned partisan identification is wider than at any point since 2009, and a statistically significant shift since 2016, when Democrats had a 4-point edge (48% to 44%). The analysis in this report draws on more than 10,000 interviews with registered voters in 2017 and tens of thousands of interviews conducted in previous years (see Methodology for additional detail).
Just healthy skepiticism but I hope that point advantage grows into more of advantage as this has rarely happened in the midterms.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017, 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican.
The 8-percentage-point Democratic advantage in leaned partisan identification is wider than at any point since 2009, and a statistically significant shift since 2016, when Democrats had a 4-point edge (48% to 44%). The analysis in this report draws on more than 10,000 interviews with registered voters in 2017 and tens of thousands of interviews conducted in previous years (see Methodology for additional detail).
Just healthy skepiticism but I hope that point advantage grows into more of advantage as this has rarely happened in the midterms.
There is skepticism which is good and then there is the handwaving as expected The issue is getting people to vote, but demographic trends are going to make it harder on Republicans if they keep on the current track. Now they can still eek out wins, but in say 10 years more of their base is gone due to age while more Democratic leaning millennials are going out to vote. The PEW chart on age groups and independent leanings is interesting in that regard.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 19:45:01
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Kilkrazy wrote: It's rather a bore, but I can't help once again pointing out the fact that 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
That is 2% of the votes cast.
Every time someone blames the election of Trump on the Democrats not voting enthusiastically enough, remember that statistic, and remember that Trump actually is the result of a system that is biased towards conservatism.
I know we've gone over this before. Clinton won California by over 4.25 million votes, that's where the 3 million margin comes from. Since we have the Electoral College, Clinton winning California by over 4 million votes doesn't matter when she loses states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by thousands of votes. It was a national election, Democrats failing to turnout in multiple "blue" states cost Clinton the presidency. It doesn't matter how popular Clinton was in California if she can't motivate people to vote in the rest of the country.
I know we've gone over this before. Clinton won California by over 4.25 million votes, that's where the 3 million margin comes from. Since we have the Electoral College, Clinton winning California by over 4 million votes doesn't matter when she loses states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by thousands of votes. It was a national election, Democrats failing to turnout in multiple "blue" states cost Clinton the presidency. It doesn't matter how popular Clinton was in California if she can't motivate people to vote in the rest of the country.
Its simple mathematics bigger number small number?
At this point the electoral college kind of needs to go.
Devaluing someones vote due to what state they are in is not a smart decision.
The issue is getting people to vote, but demographic trends are going to make it harder on Republicans if they keep on the current track. Now they can still eek out wins, but in say 10 years more of their base is gone due to age while more Democratic leaning millennials are going out to vote. The PEW chart on age groups and independent leanings is interesting in that regard.
Oh helk no, we won't have that issue this election. The unpopularity of trump is probably going to drive alot of the midterms.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 19:52:34
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's rather a bore, but I can't help once again pointing out the fact that 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
That is 2% of the votes cast.
Every time someone blames the election of Trump on the Democrats not voting enthusiastically enough, remember that statistic, and remember that Trump actually is the result of a system that is biased towards conservatism.
I know we've gone over this before. Clinton won California by over 4.25 million votes, that's where the 3 million margin comes from. Since we have the Electoral College, Clinton winning California by over 4 million votes doesn't matter when she loses states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by thousands of votes. It was a national election, Democrats failing to turnout in multiple "blue" states cost Clinton the presidency. It doesn't matter how popular Clinton was in California if she can't motivate people to vote in the rest of the country.
So glad to know that I am worth less as a person due to the state I live in.
Democratic Lead Expands Once Independent Leanings Taken Into Account
Most people who initially identify as independents will express a "leaning" toward one of the major parties if probed. Gallup has asked independents for their party leanings consistently since 1991. In addition to the 29% of Americans who identify as Democrats, another 18% initially identify as independents but when asked say they lean toward the Democratic Party, resulting in a combined 47% of Democratic identifiers and leaners. Meanwhile, 42% of Americans identify as Republicans (27%) or are Republican-leaning independents (15%).
The five-point Democratic advantage in this combined measure of party affiliation was the same in 2017 as in 2016, but higher than the three-point Democratic leads in 2014 and 2015. Since 1991, the average has been a five-point Democratic edge. The record high for Democrats was 12 points in 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected president -- replacing George W. Bush, whose popularity was low amid the ongoing Iraq War and an economic recession. The high for Republicans was a four-point GOP advantage in 1991, the year George H.W. Bush presided over a quick and decisive U.S. victory in the Gulf War.
Democrats' advantage in leaned party affiliation appears to be expanding, as it was six points (46% to 40%) in the fourth quarter of 2017 compared with four points in both the second and third quarters. Gallup found similar Democratic gains late in the year in an analysis of monthly data from its daily tracking survey.
Cough Cough what?
With that data you'd really expect the dems would have won with those numbers no?
Point still stands about loyalty. Dems get the minority vote automatically.
Hey look everyone. Another argument that has no basis in reality or relevant to the discussion at hand.
The fact is that getting minorities to come out and vote is hard. Thus claiming that they have party loyalty is laughable. Not to mention certain people that go out of their way to make it harder for minorities to vote.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's rather a bore, but I can't help once again pointing out the fact that 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
That is 2% of the votes cast.
Every time someone blames the election of Trump on the Democrats not voting enthusiastically enough, remember that statistic, and remember that Trump actually is the result of a system that is biased towards conservatism.
I know we've gone over this before. Clinton won California by over 4.25 million votes, that's where the 3 million margin comes from. Since we have the Electoral College, Clinton winning California by over 4 million votes doesn't matter when she loses states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by thousands of votes. It was a national election, Democrats failing to turnout in multiple "blue" states cost Clinton the presidency. It doesn't matter how popular Clinton was in California if she can't motivate people to vote in the rest of the country.
So glad to know that I am worth less as a person due to the state I live in.
You're not voting in a national election. You're voting in a State election, held by your State, which is a member of the United States of America. The winner of your State election earns your State's Electoral Votes and the combined total of States' Electoral Votes earned by each candidate determines who wins. We don't have one big national election we have 50 different State elections. Your vote counts as much as anyone else's vote in your State which the election you're choosing to participate in. You're taking something that has no effect on the outcome of the Presidential election, the popular vote totals, and ascribing to them a level of importance greater than the factors that actually determine who wins the Presidential election, the Electoral College, and then using that value that doesn't actually exist to construct a system to weigh the value of votes in different state elections. You've created a valuation that is a fabrication of your own mind, there is no system that devalues your vote in Presidential elections.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the bias built into the system, of which I spoke.
Rural states, which lean conservative, have a higher number of electoral college votes per resident than more urbanised states such as California.
Only because each state has 2 senators added to their electoral votes which are determined by population. So the party which has more total states get a small bonus of electoral votes. This isn't an explicit bias - it's just working against the democrats at this point because more total states vote republican.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the bias built into the system, of which I spoke.
Rural states, which lean conservative, have a higher number of electoral college votes per resident than more urbanised states such as California.
The Electoral College gives the States the same representation relative to their population that Congress does. The Electoral College doesn't set the apportionment of votes, Congress does. Your problem isn't with the Electoral College if your issues is the ratio of voters:EC votes, that issue is governed by Federal apportionment which is governed by Congress. Every state is governed by the same apportionment requirements for Congress and Congress could legislation expansion of the House tomorrow, nothing is stopping them from doing so. The population of the US has grown immensely over the past 200 years but the size of Congress has been capped at 435 members since 1913. The US population in 1913 was 97 million and we had 435 members of Congress. Now the US population is 320 million and we still have 435 members of Congress. That is not the fault of the Electoral College, the Electoral College, by law, must award EC votes by Congressional apportionment and Congress, for their own selfish reasons has refused to expand it's membership for the last 105 years.
You've created a valuation that is a fabrication of your own mind, there is no system that devalues your vote in Presidential elections.
Clearly hasn't seen the cpggrey video.
Sorry Prestor but that is completely baseless and wrong and living an alternate reality.
Nope sorry, you're making the same mistake as KK. The Electoral College doesn't control how many EC votes each state gets, the EC uses Congressional apportionment which Congress controls not the EC. Congress could rectify the apportionment imbalance tomorrow with legislation and your argument against the EC would disappear without changing the laws governing the EC at all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 20:19:34
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the bias built into the system, of which I spoke.
Rural states, which lean conservative, have a higher number of electoral college votes per resident than more urbanised states such as California.
The Electoral College gives the States the same representation relative to their population that Congress does. The Electoral College doesn't set the apportionment of votes, Congress does. Your problem isn't with the Electoral College if your issues is the ratio of voters:EC votes, that issue is governed by Federal apportionment which is governed by Congress. Every state is governed by the same apportionment requirements for Congress and Congress could legislation expansion of the House tomorrow, nothing is stopping them from doing so. The population of the US has grown immensely over the past 200 years but the size of Congress has been capped at 435 members since 1913. The US population in 1913 was 97 million and we had 435 members of Congress. Now the US population is 320 million and we still have 435 members of Congress. That is not the fault of the Electoral College, the Electoral College, by law, must award EC votes by Congressional apportionment and Congress, for their own selfish reasons has refused to expand it's membership for the last 105 years.
You've created a valuation that is a fabrication of your own mind, there is no system that devalues your vote in Presidential elections.
Clearly hasn't seen the cpggrey video.
Sorry Prestor but that is completely baseless and wrong and living an alternate reality.
Nope sorry, you're making the same mistake as KK. The Electoral College doesn't control how many EC votes each state gets, the EC uses Congressional apportionment which Congress controls not the EC. Congress could rectify the apportionment imbalance tomorrow with legislation and your argument against the EC would disappear without changing the laws governing the EC at all.
So the reason the EC is ok is because Congress sets the numbers per state, and not the EC itself. Got it. Looking at it that way, every single problem with EC is suddenly gone and magically fixed, and now everyone's vote is equal!
Oh, wait...
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Nope sorry, you're making the same mistake as KK. The Electoral College doesn't control how many EC votes each state gets, the EC uses Congressional apportionment which Congress controls not the EC. Congress could rectify the apportionment imbalance tomorrow with legislation and your argument against the EC would disappear without changing the laws governing the EC at all.
Except thats not how a democracy works. Electoral is based on how many state reps and senators has. The mathematical problem here is that someone can ignore where people actually live just like Trump did.
It doesn't ensure outcomes
It is anti-republic and anti-democracy
All the votes of winner takes all elections we currenttly have has screwed up the system. That is why people say it unfairly represents peoples votes. Someones vote in california is less than south dakota. It doesn't help.
The Electoral College is unfair and biased towards small states. North and South Dakota for example barely have the population to maintain state status.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Prestor Jon wrote: Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.
And somehow, despite our braying about "American Exceptionalism", we're not able to pull of the logisitical feats Albania was able to handle.
Spoiler:
It is impossible to look at this map and say with any degree of honesty that universal healthcare is not possible economically.
There are 100 million Americans with diabetes or prediabetes. Average cost of treatment of diabetes over a persons lifetime is $85k. If the government is going to foot the bill for that treatment we need a revenue stream to pay for it. And that’s just one example of one health condition. I’m not saying that having universal healthcare would be bad or that I don’t want the US to have it but I’ve yet to see a practical plan for paying for it.
And it would cost pennies in any other country. The word here is "price control".
What's the hit to the economy of giving everyone in the medical field a pay cut? How does that play out with quality of care?
I don't think we'd see significant cost savings without essentially nuking medical field salaries ( everyone from orderlies to brain surgeons ) and I don't see that playing out well.
Have to say I don't trust Sander's numbers. He's throwing out a number then talking about tax increases.
Far from being “misleading and biased,” the study confirms what previous reviews have concluded. Bernie’s own home state of Vermont abandoned its pursuit of socialized medicine in 2015 because it would have doubled the state’s spending in the first year alone and would have required backbreaking tax hikes on residents and businesses. Similarly, California Democrats shelved plans for a single-payer system after learning it would cost $400 billion a year, more than twice the state’s current budget.
Under the current system the costs would be astronomical. Whether it's three times the current federal budget or eight may not matter much, in the end. The studies all suffer from the same issue that the CBO routinely encounters, evaluating a plan by accepting all of the components at face value. This is the issue that I really wish the big proponents of a national healthcare system would even try to address, that all of these proposals are consistently based on the success of government price fixing for healthcare. Are there any examples of successful programs that rely on price fixing? Price fixing is different from cost savings created by the government being the bulk purchaser for the nation and politicians like Sanders never explain why price fixing is going to work.
The Mercatus study takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients.
Remember when Congress had to pass the "doctor fix" for Medicare every year? That seems to make it glaringly obvious that price fixing would be a disaster.
The doc fix (sustainable growth rate or SGR) problem dates back to a 1997 law based on a flawed formula for calculating Medicare payments. It linked those payments to the overall economy, but that meant it penalized doctors during a recession.
It gave doctors who treat Medicare patients modest raises for a while, but in 2002 it provided for a pay cut. Instead of fixing the formula, Congress had just kept enacting short-term solutions.
Congress fixed the doctor fix problem by just removing the formula that would enforce cost control.
The bill would repeal the current Medicare payment formula for doctors and replace it with one that would increase payments to doctors by one-half of 1% every year through 2019. After that, doctors would receive bonuses or penalties depending on performance scores from the government. Their scores would be based on the value of the care they provide rather than on the volume of patients they see.
Medicare recipients with incomes of more than $85,000 a year would be required to pay higher Medicare Part B premiums starting in 2018.
The legislation would end the annual scramble by lawmakers to pass a temporary patch to keep the payments from plummeting. Congress has been struggling with what both sides call a "flawed formula" since lawmakers enacted it in 1997.
Just so you know, Las Vegas Review Journal is owned by Sheldon Adelson, who seriously curtailed editorial freedom, so take statements like "Far from being “misleading and biased,” the study confirms what previous reviews have concluded." with a grain of salt,on top of being an opinion piece.
Edit: I'm not saying that the study was incorrect regarding Sanders because Sanders had no real policy, but the wider interests behind the Mercatus Center push it towards a certain conclusion.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 20:38:52
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
WASHINGTON — Facebook announced on Tuesday that it has identified a coordinated political influence campaign, with dozens of inauthentic accounts and pages that are believed to be engaging in political activity around divisive social issues ahead of November’s midterm elections.
In a series of briefings on Capitol Hill this week and a public post on Tuesday, the company told lawmakers that it had detected and removed 32 pages and accounts connected to the influence campaign on Facebook and Instagram as part of its investigations into election interference. It publicly said it had been unable to tie the accounts to Russia, whose Internet Research Agency was at the center of an indictment earlier this year for interfering in the 2016 election, but company officials told Capitol Hill that Russia was possibly involved, according to two officials briefed on the matter.
Facebook said that the accounts — eight Facebook pages, 17 Facebook profiles, and seven Instagram accounts — were created between March 2017 and May 2018 and first discovered two weeks ago. Those numbers may sound small, but their influence is spreading: More than 290,000 accounts followed at least one of the suspect pages, the company said.
Between April 2017 and June 2018, the accounts ran 150 ads costing $11,000 on the two platforms. They were paid for in American and Canadian dollars. And the pages created roughly 30 events over a similar time period, the largest of which attracted interest from 4,700 accounts.
Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, said that the activity bore some similarities to that of the Internet Research Agency, but that the actors had better disguised their efforts, using VPNs, internet phone services and third parties to purchase ads for them. He said the company had yet to see any evidence connecting the accounts to Russian IP addresses, like the ones sometimes used in the past by Internet Research Agency accounts. But there were also connections between some of the accounts and others tied to the notorious Russian troll farm that were taken down by Facebook already.
“These bad actors have been more careful to cover their tracks, in part due to the actions we’ve taken to prevent abuse over the past year,” Mr. Gleicher said.
You have 4 free articles remaining. Subscribe to The Times
The company has been working with the F.B.I. to investigate the activity.
Like the Russian interference campaign in 2016, the recently detected campaign dealt with divisive social issues.
Facebook discovered coordinated activity around issues like a sequel to last year’s deadly “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. Specifically, a page called “Resisters,” which interacted with one Internet Research Agency account in 2017, created an event called “No Unite the Right 2 — DC” to serve as a counterprotest to the white nationalist gathering, scheduled to take place in Washington in August. Mr. Gleicher said “inauthentic” administrators for the “Resisters” page went as far as to coordinate with administrators for five other apparently real pages to co-host the event, publicizing details about transportation and other logistics.
Mr. Gleicher said it disabled the event on Tuesday and notified 2,600 users of the site who had indicated interest in attending the event.
Coordinated activity was also detected around #AbolishICE, a left-wing campaign on social media that seeks to end the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, according to two people briefed on the findings. That echoed efforts in 2016 to fan division around the Black Lives Matter movement.
Democratic lawmakers said the disclosure only clarified what they have feared since the extent of Russian involvement in 2016 became clear more than a year ago.
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has exerted intense pressure on the social media companies, praised Facebook on Tuesday for bringing the activity into the public but asked for its cooperation in updating laws to prevent influence campaigns.
“Today’s disclosure is further evidence that the Kremlin continues to exploit platforms like Facebook to sow division and spread disinformation,” he said. “And I am glad that Facebook is taking some steps to pinpoint and address this activity.”
After being caught flat-footed by the Internet Research Agency’s efforts to use social media to sow division ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Facebook is trying to avoid a repeat disaster in 2018. The company has expanded its security team, hiring counterterrorism experts and recruiting workers with government security clearances.
The company is using artificial intelligence and teams of human reviewers to detect automated accounts and suspicious election-related activity. It has also tried to make it harder for Russian-style influence campaigns to use covert Facebook ads to sway public opinion, by requiring political advertisers in the United States to register with a domestic mailing address and by making all political ads visible in a public database.
On a conference call with reporters earlier this month, Mr. Gleicher declined to directly answer multiple questions about whether the company had detected additional Russian information campaigns.
“We know that Russians and other bad actors are going to continue to try to abuse our platform — before the midterms, probably during the midterms, after the midterms, and around other events and elections,” Mr. Gleicher said. “We are continually looking for that type of activity, and as and when we find things, which we think is inevitable, we’ll notify law enforcement, and where we can, the public.”
American intelligence and law enforcement officials have been warning for months that Russia’s efforts to undermine American democracy remain active and pose a threat to this year’s elections. If in fact Russian, the activity would provide vivid evidence that the kind of cyber operations used around the 2016 campaign were still in use.
The federal investigation into alleged Russian agent Mariia Butina stemmed from a series of suspicious, high-dollar money transfers to limited liability companies tied to Butina and her onetime boyfriend, South Dakota-based GOP operative Paul Erickson, according to a new report.
The Tuesday report by McClatchy laid out the origins of the probe into possible Russian attempts to infiltrate and channel money to the National Rifle Association. According to McClatchy, the NRA probe predates President Trump’s January 2017 inauguration, and is being overseen by the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, rather than Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Butina was charged in July with conspiracy against the United States and serving as an unregistered agent for Russia who worked to infiltrate the NRA, among other conservative groups. She pleaded not guilty and is in a Washington, D.C. jail awaiting trial. Erickson has not been charged, but is believed to be the individual described in court documents as “U.S. Person 1” who helped Butina coordinate her activities.
Republican operative Paul Erickson also was involved in the financial dealings that drew investigators’ interest – transfers of money exceeding $10,000 to limited liability corporations, including two created in Erickson’s home state of South Dakota, the sources said. Both of these people, including one of the sources and a third individual, also spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the investigation.
Per McClatchy, the interest of investigators at the Treasury Department was first piqued after they received a number of Suspicious Activity Reports related to LLCs linked to the couple, including some funds transfers that “appear to have come from Russia.”
At a July 18 court hearing, both federal prosecutors and Butina’s lawyer, Robert Driscoll, suggested that there was a federal fraud investigation ongoing into Erickson in South Dakota. Both parties said Butina offered to assist in that probe.
Driscoll confirmed to McClatchy that some $20,000 passed through Bridges LLC, one of the South
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/31 20:40:45
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Nope sorry, you're making the same mistake as KK. The Electoral College doesn't control how many EC votes each state gets, the EC uses Congressional apportionment which Congress controls not the EC. Congress could rectify the apportionment imbalance tomorrow with legislation and your argument against the EC would disappear without changing the laws governing the EC at all.
Except thats not how a democracy works. Electoral is based on how many state reps and senators has. The mathematical problem here is that someone can ignore where people actually live just like Trump did.
It doesn't ensure outcomes
It is anti-republic and anti-democracy
All the votes of winner takes all elections we currenttly have has screwed up the system. That is why people say it unfairly represents peoples votes. Someones vote in california is less than south dakota. It doesn't help.
The Electoral College is unfair and biased towards small states. North and South Dakota for example barely have the population to maintain state status.
The Electoral college exist to give small states more representation. You just don't like that it doesn't suit your party atm. Founders understood - people are influenced by the people around them and this would give larger states too much political clout.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder