The Next President is...

[Guardian]

I gotta disagree with you on this one. The country is not evenly divided, and it is unhealthy for all the big cities to be making the legislation that governs the rural areas. Electoral college is the best prevention against one specific ideology running the country while alienating an entire half of the country. It's a good way to keep the masses from voting mob rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let it be recorded that I agree with you. Glad you think this way on this topic.

[Guardian]

That's fine, you guys are cleared to disagree. I still think you're wrong. There are more republican voters in California, whose votes don't matter at all, than those in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia combined.
If you look into it, you aren't really following the constitutional founding fathers' intentions. The number of electors was always intended to be the number of senators plus the number of representatives. As our society grew from about 35k people / representative to the 700k people / rep that we have now, the impact of the people should have increased proportionally because the number of representatives should have increased. George Washington argued that there should be a representative for every 30k people. But in  1913, # of representatives was capped arbitrarily to 435. This contributed, strongly, to the undue voter weight of extremely small portions of America and the disregard for vast sects of society. 
Now the tyranny of the minority has resulted in 2 of the last 3 presidents being elected by the minority of voters. Before, this had only happened 3 times. I'm doubtful this was the intent of the constitution or the founding fathers.
Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

Pretty sure people hear California’s voices.

[Negatory]

25 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Pretty sure people hear California’s voices.

Do they hear the >5M republicans?

[ThreeHoler]

Nope, it should function as written no matter what the leaning of the metropolis. Those are the rules and how our country operates. 
 
The idea of California being at least three states, however, is definitely a good academic exercise because of how different things are in all those areas. 

I propose it becomes “Cal” in the north, “Ifor” in the middle, and “Nia” in the south.

[SurelySerious]

4 hours ago, Waingro said:

Except, it hasn't functioned as written in over 100 years, when the number of representatives was capped at 435. Anyone who claims to support the idea of the electoral college due to founding principles has to at least acknowledge this disparity, that gives a Wyoming resident 3x the voting power of a Texas resident. 

The "Wyoming Rule" is a workable fix for this, but I doubt we'll see it. 

So would you say there is a set of rules that we’ve been following? Cool...because that’s what I said.
 

I didn’t cry when Clinton, Bush, or Obama won by the set rules...it works. 

[N730]

So would you say there is a set of rules that we’ve been following? Cool...because that’s what I said.
 
I didn’t cry when Clinton, Bush, or Obama won by the set rules...it works. 

I think his point was that what the founders intended was the electoral college, not the modified version we have now.

The electoral college rightly favors smaller states, but the numbers cap created by congress was not what the founders had in mind.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

7 minutes ago, N730 said:

I think his point was that what the founders intended was the electoral college, not the modified version we have now.

The electoral college rightly favors smaller states, but the numbers cap created by congress was not what the founders had in mind.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app
 

How far back do you want to go with that? Repeal the 12th A and go straight back to the original constitution text? My original point was the system in place works, not sure why the other guy wants to argue like I erroneously said originalism was the only way as if that’s still in play. 

[N730]

How far back do you want to go with that? Repeal the 12th A and go straight back to the original constitution text? My original point was the system in place works, not sure why the other guy wants to argue like I erroneously said originalism was the only way as if that’s still in play. 

Well I think a constitutional amendment carries a little more weight than a law. Especially one that created an arbitrary cap on the number of representatives just before we add the 47th and 48th states.

But he probably shouldn't have replied to you. Especially if his intent was to target his comment at those in this thread arguing originalism.

I donno man, haha I was just trying to provide another view point of his comment.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

7 minutes ago, N730 said:

Well I think a constitutional amendment carries a little more weight than a law. Especially one that created an arbitrary cap on the number of representatives just before we add the 47th and 48th states.

But he probably shouldn't have replied to you. Especially if his intent was to target his comment at those in this thread arguing originalism.

I donno man, haha I was just trying to provide another view point of his comment.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app
 

Amendments do to a certain extent, but at times when one party or the other has controlled both sides of congress and the presidency no one has tried seriously to change that cap...so it seems that much like immigration no one cares enough to spend the political capital for a change. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by SurelySerious

[N730]

Amendments do to a certain extent, but at times when one party or the other has controlled both sides of congress and the presidency no one has tried seriously to change that cap...so it seems that much like immigration no one cares enough to spend the political capital for a change. 

Agreed. Sadly we have passed the age of bipartisan work in the interest of the country.

I'm not necessarily saying changing this rule would benefit the country, I don't know. But generally, the parties seem to want to maintain the status quo so they don't lose their talking points.

Plus, in this instance, congresspeople would be diluting their own power. So, like term limits, it's probably never going to happen.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[Sim]

I hear some people like a monologue when it's done by talking heads. Probably will not like this one. 

 

[Lord Ratner]

21 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I know it’s Bill Maher, but trust me you non-Dems (and probably Dems) will like this.

I've always loved him. Disagree on almost everything, but he's consistent and honest, and he's never bought the whole intersectional coalition BS his party adopted.

[Lord Ratner]

19 hours ago, Prozac said:

This. This is the most coherent argument against the Left. Those of us who are left of center need to internalize this message. If you’re on the other side, don’t worry, you’ve got plenty of your own wackos to recon with (see pretty much all of Sim’s posts above). 

The difference is "our" (I'm not really a Republican) wackos aren't mainstreamed by the party.

 

Seriously, you don't see proud boys or white nationalists doing interviews on Fox news. And you don't have a hard time finding Republican politicians who actively condemn them.

 

Conversely, critical race theory and all the other harmful, lunatic propositions are advocated for at the highest levels of power within the Democratic party. And it's a lot easier to find mainstream politicians who will outright refuse to acknowledge the violence of antifa.

 

As usual, Bill Maher is spot on in his criticisms of his own party.

[Lord Ratner]

16 hours ago, Pooter said:

I'm inclined to agree with you, but let's be honest with ourselves here. In an alternate reality, if big cities skewed heavily republican, you and I both know the right would be railing against the electoral college as un-democratic. 

This is the most annoying part of politics to me: anyone that pretends that either party actually has principles. Pragmatic opportunism drives 100% of politics. 

Doesn't matter. In that alternate world the EC would protect the rural Democrats, as intended. 

 

As you say, politicians, with few exceptions, say whatever they think will win. So if course the (R) would be complaining. Doesn't affect the merits of the system.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Sim said:

I hear some people like a monologue when it's done by talking heads. Probably will not like this one. 

 

I like him too. Important to remember that he's not talking about (D) voters, he's talking about the (D) media and politicians.

 

I also like that he actively makes fun of his profession with things like the "Period!" animation at the end. 

 

The sooner we can realize, as voters on both sides, that there is no longer a connection between the political/media class and the citizenship, the better.

[slackline]

5 hours ago, Sim said:

I hear some people like a monologue when it's done by talking heads. Probably will not like this one. 
 

You guys take him seriously? Talk about a vitriol fueled rant...

He has some decent points, but when he's so incredibly angry, hard to take it seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 16, 2020 by slackline
grammar and stuff

[Danger41]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The difference is "our" (I'm not really a Republican) wackos aren't mainstreamed by the party.

 

Seriously, you don't see proud boys or white nationalists doing interviews on Fox news. And you don't have a hard time finding Republican politicians who actively condemn them.

 

Conversely, critical race theory and all the other harmful, lunatic propositions are advocated for at the highest levels of power within the Democratic party. And it's a lot easier to find mainstream politicians who will outright refuse to acknowledge the violence of antifa.

 

As usual, Bill Maher is spot on in his criticisms of his own party.

I don’t follow politics hardly at all, but whatever happened to the Tea Party within the Republican Party? Don’t hear about that anymore.

[17D_guy]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I've always loved him. Disagree on almost everything, but he's consistent and honest, and he's never bought the whole intersectional coalition BS his party adopted.

Him yelling at the 9/11 truthers to "get the fuck out" is one of my favorite things.

[Lord Ratner]

3 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

I don’t follow politics hardly at all, but whatever happened to the Tea Party within the Republican Party? Don’t hear about that anymore.

What part of the tea party was radical? Real question, that was a while ago.

[17D_guy]

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

What part of the tea party was radical? Real question, that was a while ago.

This is a matter of perspective answer.  Some people will find them radical, some won't.  I surmise most won't care.

Tea Party kinda died after Ted Cruz caused the gov't shutdown, and the R's took both houses of Congress.  I imagine we'll be hearing from political scientists/historians how it paved the way for Trumpism, where the Tea Party ideals were abandoned for the "most conservative president ever."

[pawnman]

10 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

This is a matter of perspective answer.  Some people will find them radical, some won't.  I surmise most won't care.

Tea Party kinda died after Ted Cruz caused the gov't shutdown, and the R's took both houses of Congress.  I imagine we'll be hearing from political scientists/historians how it paved the way for Trumpism, where the Tea Party ideals were abandoned for the "most conservative president ever."

Only in the hyperpartisan environment of 2020 would Trump be considered conservative.

[Sim]

35 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

I don’t follow politics hardly at all, but whatever happened to the Tea Party within the Republican Party? Don’t hear about that anymore.

It was targeted by the "scandal free" prior administration. 

 

https://apnews.com/article/9d2d5e28d661455da834aee66f54353a  

Quote

The IRS is an independent agency within the Treasury Department that enforces the nation’s tax laws. Revelations that the agency was targeting political groups because they were affiliated with a movement that is critical of President Barack Obama could become a new headache for the White House.

“The admission by the Obama administration that the Internal Revenue Service targeted political opponents echoes some of the most shameful abuses of government power in 20th century American history,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.

 

[slackline]

Somebody recommended it in here before, but I think everyone should have a mandatory watch of The Social Dilemma on Netflix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

This just in.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/georgia-secretary-state-brad-raffensperger-wants-elections-director-step-floyd-county-finds-2600-uncounted-ballots/?

Thoughts?

[Negatory]

21 minutes ago, Guardian said:

This just in.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/georgia-secretary-state-brad-raffensperger-wants-elections-director-step-floyd-county-finds-2600-uncounted-ballots/?

Thoughts?

A republican controlled county did a bad job of counting their own votes? And it doesn’t come close to affecting anything?

Thoughts?