General politics

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you're advocating for something other than the abolition of the Senate, and with it states' rights, then I apologize for missing it.

 

But if you are, then several follow-up questions spring to mind. But maybe your answer to the first one will clear up some of the other ones, and that first question is: what's your model for succeeding as a capitalist democracy with no meaningful governing structure other than an omnipotent federal government?

 

I am NOT arguing for the abolition of the Senate!

 

I am asking if we should reconsider how it is made up, if the projects are accurate. And, this isn't rural vs city or anything to that effect......it is a small percent of the nation having 3x as much voting power when it comes to electing Senators. I don't find that tasteful or fair.

 

I don't have a good answer, btw.....but it will be a problem if projections are accurate (and they should be, these aren't nearly as hard as predicting baseball player futures, for example).

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you're advocating for something other than the abolition of the Senate, and with it states' rights, then I apologize for missing it.

 

But if you are, then several follow-up questions spring to mind. But maybe your answer to the first one will clear up some of the other ones, and that first question is: what's your model for succeeding as a capitalist democracy with no meaningful governing structure other than an omnipotent federal government?

 

I have no idea how you got that from any of my posts.......I have no interest in an all powerful federal government. States should exist, as should cities and counties and other types of government bodies. 

 

As for capitalism.....good luck with that one. Jobs are only going to get more scarce as robots do more and more (remember when we were told they'd never be able to do "smart" things, like accounting.....).

[Mike Sixel]

but, this seems to be going nowhere....maybe we should go back to figuring out how to get people to vote.....

[PseudoSABR]

The solution to Tyranny of the Majority is not Tyranny of the Minority.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The solution to Tyranny of the Majority is not Tyranny of the Minority.

 

Damn, you are better at this than I am.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

The solution to Tyranny of the Majority is not Tyranny of the Minority.

 

Sure, but that's not happening.  Unless you mean the way the wealthy have more power, but that seems like a separate issue from this topic.

 

Our republic is designed to prevent all forms of tyranny.  It's worked fairly well too.  Even now.

[Doomtints]

 

Sure, but that's not happening. 

 

Yes it is. The GOP in DC are not following the will of their own constituents.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't know we are in tyranny range....but this is moving us there:

 

1. SCOTUS and states taking away voting rights left and right, and it is going to get worse
2. Immigrants being detained, including seperating infants from their parents and having children sign away their rights,
3. the most heavily armed our police have ever been, and entire movement being birthed because they are allowed to shoot certain people
4. More income inequality than ever, and it is getting worse
5. Our president encouraging violence against the press
6. People sending bombs to "enemies of the people"
7. Our president admitting he's a nationalist
8.  

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Sure, but that's not happening. Unless you mean the way the wealthy have more power, but that seems like a separate issue from this topic.

 

Our republic is designed to prevent all forms of tyranny. It's worked fairly well too. Even now.

I don't know if it's still working as intended now.

Example: One intent of the delegate representation system for Presidential elections was to prevent the people from electing a dangerous, incompetent like Trump. That failed.

[TheLeviathan]

Yes it is. The GOP in DC are not following the will of their own constituents.

That's a different issue. A valid one to be sure though.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't know if it's still working as intended now.

Example: One intent of the delegate representation system for Presidential elections was to prevent the people from electing a dangerous, incompetent like Trump. That failed.

Do you think Trump is severe enough for that? I'm not sure I'd agree he is, no matter what I personally think.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Do you think Trump is severe enough for that? I'm not sure I'd agree he is, no matter what I personally think.

 

He's talking about rolling back the 1987 nuclear arms deal.....but that might just be to fire up the base?

[Mr. Brooks]

Do you think Trump is severe enough for that? I'm not sure I'd agree he is, no matter what I personally think.

Absolutely I do. Someone with his level of narcissism, impulsivness, temper, lack of empathy and seemingly complete disregard for life and/or limb of anyone he doesn't like is dangerous.

I feel like there is a ticking time bomb in the White House, and am not optimistic that he won't be the cause of something that lives in the history books for thousands of years- if humans survive his presidency.

Do you trust a man of his temperament in full control of nukes, and the most powerful military in the history of the world?

[LaBombo]

 

I am NOT arguing for the abolition of the Senate!

 

I am asking if we should reconsider how it is made up, if the projects are accurate. And, this isn't rural vs city or anything to that effect......it is a small percent of the nation having 3x as much voting power when it comes to electing Senators. I don't find that tasteful or fair.

 

I don't have a good answer, btw.....but it will be a problem if projections are accurate (and they should be, these aren't nearly as hard as predicting baseball player futures, for example).

 

Apologies for jumping to that conclusion, it was just me trying to see your reasoning through to what seems to me to be its likely result.

 

But the fact remains that the primary differentiation of the Senate from the House and the other branches is that it represents all states equally. Failing that, it's hard for me to see what purpose it would serve, or a good argument against doing away with it.

 

And I'm fine with your being dissatisfied with the current system without having a great alternative all worked out. What we have now certainly isn't perfect, and shouldn't be above criticism and conjecture about changing it.

[TheLeviathan]

Absolutely I do. Someone with his level of narcissism, impulsivness, temper, lack of empathy and seemingly complete disregard for life and/or limb of anyone he doesn't like is dangerous.

I feel like there is a ticking time bomb in the White House, and am not optimistic that he won't be the cause of something that lives in the history books for thousands of years- if humans survive his presidency.

Do you trust a man of his temperament in full control of nukes, and the most powerful military in the history of the world?

Personally I don't find the man qualified for much of anything.

 

I did some reading about the Framers and the EC and it swayed me more to your view. Though the independent voting EC is very different than our current understanding. Perhaps that is another place to consider revision.

[Craig Arko]

https://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/revolution/docs/Common_Sense.pdf

[PseudoSABR]

On today's news.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't know if it's still working as intended now.
Example: One intent of the delegate representation system for Presidential elections was to prevent the people from electing a dangerous, incompetent like Trump. That failed.

Right.  As I understood the electoral college was far more about that policy than insuring that any minority group need a larger portion of the electoral pie.   The arguments for the electoral college, as I understand it, are largely post-script, and don't necessarily reflect the intent of the framers.  Though clearly the framers were concerned with Tyranny in all its forms. 

[Badsmerf]

Do you think Trump is severe enough for that? I'm not sure I'd agree he is, no matter what I personally think.

I believe many millions of people would say Trump qualifies for that. I cringe thinking about the ramifications of his response to a true tragedy.... He basically blamed the media for bombs being sent to people and organizations he's slandered for years.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Do you think Trump is severe enough for that? I'm not sure I'd agree he is, no matter what I personally think.

Trump's conflicts of interest are disqualifying by itself, which are numerous, and many known before his election.  We need not get to his mental fitness, his sense of empathy/decency, his capacity for honesty, etc.   

[PseudoSABR]

We need more of this. (re: our discussion of how to respond to right wing arguments)

[LaBombo]

 

We need more of this. (re: our discussion of how to respond to right wing arguments)

 

Yup, smear 'em with accusations of racism. Battle tested!

 

And hey, let's be honest... what else could possibly explain people being concerned about a gubernatorial candidate lying repeatedly about accepting unreported gifts, including at least one from an undercover FBI agent?

 

To no one's surprise, those notorious racist bullies at the ultra-right NYT ran yet another article this morning about the negative impact of more evidence made public yesterday that further supports charges of Gillum's misconduct.

 

But that was before Gillum's snappy sound bite, so I'm sure everything will be fine.

 

 

[Badsmerf]

If this allegation against him is true... he accepted a ticket to a play on Broadway. I don't know much about this case, but this is apparently the big gotchya. I don't know how much those plays cost, but if that is all they've found in a big investigation... color me unimpressed. Let's actually investigate our president and his family for business ties and political favors. I think there'd be a lot more than a play found.

[LaBombo]

 

If this allegation against him is true... he accepted a ticket to a play on Broadway. I don't know much about this case, but this is apparently the big gotchya. I don't know how much those plays cost, but if that is all they've found in a big investigation... color me unimpressed. Let's actually investigate our president and his family for business ties and political favors. I think there'd be a lot more than a play found.

 

He lied about it repeatedly, which is probably the bigger concern to most people.

 

But you can definitely run with the idea that every act of Dem misconduct is fine, because Trump! It seems counter-productive to the future of political integrity in America, however.

 

In the mean time, just answer one question for you. Based on how many people in the Democratic party, the FBI, and the media loathe Trump... do you seriously believe that your idea of investigating him hasn't at least had the tires kicked by now?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yup, smear 'em with accusations of racism. Battle tested!

 

And hey, let's be honest... what else could possibly explain people being concerned about a gubernatorial candidate lying repeatedly about accepting unreported gifts, including at least one from an undercover FBI agent?

 

To no one's surprise, those notorious racist bullies at the ultra-right NYT ran yet another article this morning about the negative impact of more evidence made public yesterday that further supports charges of Gillum's misconduct.

 

But that was before Gillum's snappy sound bite, so I'm sure everything will be fine.

I wasn't posting that to endorse Gillum, (as you probably know, I'm just getting to know the public figure/and haven't researched the allegation). Rather, I posted to highlight that taking money from racist organizations does acknowledge their belief that the candidate will further the cause (the kind of rhetoric, I do want from Democrat candidates).

 

Maybe you can poo-poo the racist slant, but I can't because it looks pretty part and parcel to me. Desantis may not be a racist, but he accepts their support, and that both has real meaning, and should have consequences.

 

*But I do think you are probably right, that a candidate who moves further to the far left is susceptible to supporters who overlook his own corruption; that tribalism definitely exists on the left as well.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Trump's conflicts of interest are disqualifying by itself, which are numerous, and many known before his election.  We need not get to his mental fitness, his sense of empathy/decency, his capacity for honesty, etc.   

 

It'd be nice if we had more concrete evidence of this to be sure.

 

I do think the EC was intended for this, it was also intended to balance the tyranny of straight population votes.  

[LaBombo]

 

 

Maybe you can poo-poo the racist slant

 

It's been a sad, scary day, so I'm not going to make it worse by going further down that path. And I agree with your addendum that the more extremely left or right a candidate is, the more likely it seems that their non-partisan negative characteristics get overlooked by their most fervent supporters.

 

With respect to the Gillum/Desantis race, which I have very little personal stake in, I'll just say 3 things: yes, of course Desantis needs to be held accountable for any ties to racist groups; Gillum has wrongly attempted to conflate a call for accountability over ethics with racism; and most of all... if I were still a Florida voter, I'd sure be wishing there were a really strong Independent in the race about now.

[Badsmerf]

I'm not defending his actions by any means. My only point is, the investigation isn't done, and the main misconduct related to him is a ticket to Broadway the FBI got him to try to set him up... and he seems to have plausible deniability. He can absolutely be lying, and there could absolutely be more we haven't heard about.

 

I feel the same way about Republican ethics inquiries where the amount is a couple hundred dollars. Doesn't make it right, I just don't find it as severe as those that are breaking the rules multiple times for multiple thousands.... or millions.

 

Take Mike Sexton in my state district. His wife bought a building for 20k or something less than a block from my house a few years ago. He has been charging the state rent for an office ever since. He's charging $500 a month, paid to his wife. The money they've received had already paid over half the cost of the building. That by itself is a little suspect, but the kicker is there is NEVER anyone there. I've passed the office hundreds of times, and not once was there a person at the office. So he's over charging the state rent for a building he owns, and doesn't have an office in. That is a problem.

[biggentleben]

 

It's a projection, but not that much different than today. Adding up some numbers at

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

I come up with the top 15 states at 66% of the total US population, meaning that 35 states (70 senators) are 34%. For the sake of this discussion, that seems strong enough, even if someday it drops even further to 30% or whatever.

 

On the other side of the coin, it's not the case that small states monolithically vote a certain way. Tiny little Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Delaware reliably vote for the Democratic ticket, and various other low-population states can be considered swing states, although not very important swing states in presidential elections since they don't control a lot of electoral college votes.

 

I don't like it, but it's not hopeless.

 

The most popular (and powerful) Senators from South Dakota in the last half-century were both Democrats. I think either could run again today at prime age and be voted in. While the state in general swings hard R in voting, there is strong consideration given to the best candidate typically by the majority of the populace. Even then, the state is flowing more and more to Sioux Falls and Rapid City as "urban" areas in the state.

[biggentleben]

 

Yes it is. The GOP in DC are not following the will of their own constituents.

 

That's the issue. If you had DC voting the way their constituents elected them to, this would not be an issue.