Sign in to follow this  
JimBowie

HOW CLOSE DID WE COME TO TOTAL DICTATORSHIP?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jules said:

Right.  Believing the system works is like saying, "Even though my brakes failed, which caused the car accident, no one died, so the brakes really do work.".

"If the brakes don't stop you, something else will!"

Working!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bugsy said:

The elections were referred to as "the most rigged ever" by Francis Johnson-Morris, a modern head of the country's National Elections Commission,[2] and also made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the most fraudulent election ever reported in history,[3][4] as despite there being fewer than 15,000 registered voters, King received around 243,000 votes, compared to 9,000 for Faulkner.

Winning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NPV compact wouldn't affect the influence of populism in elections.  Elections enable populism  -  that's just an unavoidable issue with having elections.  

If 2016  proved anything, it's that the EC doesn't prevent or weaken populism, at all, in the first place. 

If anything, the EC currently encourages populism: the States where votes count for more, are the States with more less-educated voters.  The States where votes count for less, are the States with more educated voters. 

As far as maintaining the Balance of Power between States and Federal levels  -  the States are already protected, relative to the Federal, by having a Senate.  On top of which, who runs federal elections?  Every step  -  from deciding on the shape of the districts, to designing the ballots, to counting the popular vote and certifying the ballots  -  is run by the States.

The EC gives the States TOO MUCH power in Federal politics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, frenchie said:

The EC gives the States TOO MUCH power in Federal politics.

It's a union you fukwit! Get tht thru your fat ass. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a very interesting article in Politico, mainly about the debacle in Michigan but also its implications nationwide. The GOP has revealed itself to be the party of deliberate fraud, machinations, and lies. It's a long article, here's the end of it.

Quote

More than any policy enacted or court vacancy filled, Trump’s legacy will be his unprecedented assault on the legitimacy of the ballot box. And it will not be considered in isolation. Future iterations of the GOP will make casual insinuations of voter fraud central to the party’s brand. The next generation of Republicans will have learned how to sow doubts about election integrity in one breath and in the next breath bemoan the nation’s lack of faith in our elections, creating a self-perpetuating justification to cast suspicion on a process that by raw numbers does not appear conducive to keeping them in power.

Look no further than John James. It took three full weeks after Election Day—despite his race being called for Gary Peters on November 4, despite the certified county totals proving he had lost by 92,000 votes—for the Republican Senate nominee to concede defeat. In the interim, he released a series of videos calling for independent investigations into Detroit’s voting irregularities, insisting that such efforts are needed to “restore trust” in the system.

“This is not some whacked-out fringe,” James said in one taping. “When half the votes in our state believe we just had the most secure election in U.S. history, and the other half believe they were cheated, we have a problem.”

James is right. We do have a problem. Our elections continue to be underfunded. Our election bureaus are chronically understaffed. Our election workers are badly undertrained. Our elections are prone to a significant amount of human error—and any municipal or county clerk will tell you that concerns over not catching those errors keep them up at night.

But errors are not fraud. And when James says he’s troubled that half of Michigan’s voters feel they were cheated, he would do well to remember that he was the one telling them they got cheated in the first place.

That November 4 missive James retweeted from his campaign adviser—“Stop making up numbers, stalling the process and cheating the system”—has since been deleted. But there is no denying the advent of a pattern. Republicans in Michigan and across America have spent the past three weeks promoting baseless allegations of corruption at the ballot box, the rabid responses to which they use as justification to continue to question the fundamental integrity of our elections. It’s a vicious new playbook—one designed to stroke egos and rationalize defeats, but with unintended consequences that could spell the unraveling of America’s democratic experiment.

“By capriciously throwing around these false claims, you can’t get to the heart of a really important issue. In fact, you lose any credibility to get to the heart of that issue,” said Venable, the longtime Michigan GOP official who rocked his former comrades by endorsing Biden this fall. “And by the way, if you’re going to do an audit, you’d better do it statewide. This is not just a Detroit thing. There are sloppy Republican precincts all over the state. When I served on the Ingham County board of canvassers, we never had a problem in Lansing. You know where our big problems were? The small townships in the rural precincts of the county, run by Republican clerks. And those folks weren’t perpetrating fraud, either. That’s the point: There’s a difference between sloppiness and fraud. But you can’t solve one by inventing stories about the other.”

There is no immediate way to make Americans appreciate this distinction, no instant cure for the flagging confidence in our elections. But there are obvious incremental steps to take in the name of transparency and efficiency. First among them, acknowledged Chatfield, the Michigan House speaker, is getting rid of the rules that led to the TCF Center circus in the first place.

“There’s a lot we can learn in the state of Michigan, because the way we’ve handled this, it’s become a national embarrassment,” Chatfield told me in a brief interview after the final certification vote. “And one of the items where we should look at other states and see how they’ve done it well, is regarding the early processing of absentee ballots. We mishandled that this year. We should have allowed for early processing. We didn’t, and it became a spectacle. I think we can learn from that. It should be something the Legislature fixes moving forward.”

This is relatively easy for Chatfield to admit—he’s term limited and leaving office soon. For those Republicans left to pick up the pieces in the coming legislative session, there may be little incentive for bipartisan cooperation on a subject that now divides the two party bases as starkly as gun rights or tax rates. The backlash against absentee voting from Republican constituents was already fierce; in the wake of Trump’s defeat and the TCF Center conspiracies, Republicans might find it beneficial to avoid raising the issue at all.

There is little cause for optimism. If the majority of GOP politicians couldn’t be bothered to do the easy work of debunking crackpot conspiracy theories, how likely are they to do the hard work of hardening our democracy?

“A lot of our leaders in this country ought to be ashamed of themselves,” said Thomas, the nonpartisan elections guru who kept Michigan’s governing class guessing his political affiliation for the past several decades. “They have propagated this narrative of massive fraud, and it’s simply not true. They’ve leapt from some human error to massive fraud. It’s like a leap to Never Neverland. And people are believing them.”

He exhaled with a disgusted groan.

“The people of this country really need to wake up and start thinking for themselves and looking for facts—not conspiracy theories being peddled by people who are supposed to be responsible leaders, but facts,” Thomas said. “If they’re not going to be responsible leaders, people need to seek out the truth for themselves. If people don’t do that—if they no longer trust how we elect the president of the United States—we’re going to be in real trouble.”

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/24/michigan-election-trump-voter-fraud-democracy-440475

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^  Wow.  That is good.  Thanks for sharing.  I like this:

If the majority of GOP politicians couldn’t be bothered to do the easy work of debunking crackpot conspiracy theories, how likely are they to do the hard work of hardening our democracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Venom said:

It's a union you fukwit! Get tht thru your fat ass. <_<

Jeebus, what a jerk; nothing but name calling as usual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Venom said:

Get tht thru your fat ass. <_<

"fat ass"?  LOL. 

I'm 5'10 and weigh 140, tubs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, frenchie said:

"fat ass"?  LOL. 

I'm 5'10 and weigh 140, tubs.

 

Vermin is 4'7" and weighs 90 lbs, but that's average for 13-year-olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, frenchie said:

"fat ass"?  LOL. 

I'm 5'10 and weigh 140, tubs.

 

The dimwit never gets anything right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have taken a step back from the precipice. But the forces and interests that almost took us over the edge are very much still with us. Someone more competent than Trump who could motivate his minions is out there somewhere already plotting for 2024.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

We have taken a step back from the precipice. But the forces and interests that almost took us over the edge are very much still with us. Someone more competent than Trump who could motivate his minions is out there somewhere already plotting for 2024.

And they will have the entire Repugnican party behind them. Again. Doesn't matter if it's the rebirth of Adolf H, as long as they get to stay in power and keep grifting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

We have taken a step back from the precipice. But the forces and interests that almost took us over the edge are very much still with us. Someone more competent than Trump who could motivate his minions is out there somewhere already plotting for 2024.

Unfortunately I think you're entirely correct here. And Steve Bannon and Mitch McConnell will be glad to aid/abet them

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

And they will have the entire Repugnican party behind them. Again. Doesn't matter if it's the rebirth of Adolf H, as long as they get to stay in power and keep grifting.

To be sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Unfortunately I think you're entirely correct here. And Steve Bannon and Mitch McConnell will be glad to aid/abet them

- DSK

Those two will be on the front lines in support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Those two will be on the front lines in support

With any luck Bannon will be in jail. McConnell...I wish doom and unmitigated failure on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

With any luck Bannon will be in jail. McConnell...I wish doom and unmitigated failure on him.

Re McConnell. The late, great Moms Mabley had a great line.  Something along the lines of: they say you should only speak good of the dead.  He’s dead. That’s good.

An observation attributed to a 19th century politician and perhaps Mark Twain.  “When asked if he was attending the funeral of a long time political rival, the answer was, ‘no, but I approve of it.’ “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mark K said:

Maher nailed it again this week. Rarely does this guy go this deep, and for two weeks in a row he did. He not only illustrates why Trump's appeal is cultish, anyone can do that, he also nails the nature of cults. He uses the successful deprograming of one member of the dictatorial NXIUM cult as an apt example. 

I've watched this a few times. Yes, I see the clear parallel to cults. Here's another analysis of QAnon which I like.

However, I did not like Maher's example of Catherine Oxenberg. Oxenberg was her daughter's mother. That is how that works. But Maher's example confuses the personal with the political, retail with wholesale. Oxenberg can remind her daughter who she used to be. That doesn't work with Dog; that doesn't work with the I'd Rather Be Russian guys. That doesn't work with Hannity. That doesn't work with Lindsey Graham. In fact, I can't think of anyone who that would work with, outside of parent child. If you can think of anyone, lemme know.

In my family, we have some Trumpers at the outer edges. We don't scream at them; we don't actually expect them to change. We're polite at Thanksgiving on the rare occasions we see them (Rs, they do hate urbia). However, this means nothing about how I should deal with Republicans, politically, socially or sitting on the rail on a long tack.

This fallacy of hope is my problem with centrists in general; they see 'moderate' Republicans as kindred spirits with whom they think/hope they can strike a deal. But take a close look at that election, like at the top line. Republicans voted for this piece of shit in historic numbers, as in no Republican has ever received more votes, more than any winner ever. It's only because Democrats and independents voted for Biden in even larger numbers that he lost. These 'moderate' Republicans voted for that piece of shit. No, these moderate Republicans are not moderates at all. You are fooling yourself if you think so.

Oxenberg is smart and her daughter was no doubt a manipulative piece of work; i'm familiar with the archetype. However Oxenberg only had one problem to work and she had a very good reason for not abandoning it. She had a solvable personal problem, not a tribal political one. Her personal experience informs nothing, nada, zilch with regard to the tribal divide.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2020 at 2:14 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

The "system" barely worked. If you all fly KIS airlines and I land with an engine out, dead battery, talk on my handheld, crank the landing gear down by hand, navigate with my iPhone, and stick a flashlight out the window to read taxiway signs you could say the system "worked" for sure, I mean you got to where you were going didn't you:rolleyes: A more rational person might say that airplane came 98% of the way to crashing and maybe we need to fix it.

The Republican Party failed. They should have told Trump to GTFO and they didn't.

The electoral college utterly failed. They should have rejected Trump outright. That is one of their JOBS and they didn't do shit.

The 3 branches of Government came very close to failing. The Republicans in Congress utterly and completely failed in their duties in a way not ever seen before that I know of. What Trump wanted he got to the point they ceased having a party platform and literally replaced it with "Whatever Trump Wants". The Republicans gave Trump a blank check to commit rampant criminality and fraud and made sure the impeachment did not succeed. They didn't even pretend to care if he was guilty or not.

The ONLY thing that seems to have succeeded is that the judiciary is not yet fatally compromised. The Republicans are working on fixing that as fast as they can.

Trump ANNOUNCED for fucks sake his plan to make a mess of the election to include screwing up the post office and win it in a compliant Supreme Court. He should have been impeached the next DAY for that. Then after what miraculously turned out to be a well run election he did everything his addled brain could think of along with his cohort of mentally challenged lawyers to wreck it. It failed because of rank stupidity, but that is just luck. The Republicans in the House were quite content to let him try and it might have worked. A sitting president tries to overturn an election and the R answer is "Meh, let him have his fun. Maybe it will work, who knows? If it does we sure don't want to be on record as opposing our new President For Life now do we?"

The saving grace seems to be many state level Republican officials and judges that still believe in democracy. Now the Republicans see how close they got, do you think they won't be working 24/7/365 to make sure every slot in every state is filled with compliant officials who will sign off on anything? This problem is far from over, we are just getting started and the next Trump might not be an idiot :o

 

 

 

Ok, all valid points.  What specifically would you do to fix the airplane (system)????

However, Where I think your analogy to a 98% broken airplane fails is that it implies the system (aricraft) itself is broken and crumbling and that only by the saving grace of a brilliantly skilled pilot - it was brought in safely, barely. 

I think instead the analogy would be more like a pilot who got hammered the night before while doing coke and hookers after being thrown out of the house by his wife and was mentally distraught because his whole life was crumbling down around him - showed up the next morning still blind drunk, throwing up on the crew chiefs shoes - and then got behind the stick of a decently maintained aircraft.  He taxiies into a fence on the way to runway, has a tail strike on takeoff, gets lost enroute to the destination, is running low on gas, deliberately shuts down 3 of 4 engines, and then crashes on the runway after forgetting to put the gear down and miraculously only 250K people died in the crash after it plunges into the icy river off the end of the runway.  

Is that the aircraft's fault all that happened?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2020 at 2:18 PM, SloopJonB said:

Preventing a Trump from gaining the office due to a moronic electorate is the whole reason the college was created.

Good idea,  didn't work.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

Yeah, but they never envisioned the electorate would have social media like twitter and facebook and be perfectly informed and "possess all the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, frenchie said:

If 2016  proved anything, it's that the EC doesn't prevent or weaken populism, at all, in the first place. 

I've said this before when the topic of NPV and the EC came up - that the push in many states to punish "faithless" electors goes against the very principle of what the EC was originally intended to do.  The ENTIRE FUCKING Point of the EC was to be faithless to the popular vote, if and when, the situation warranted as Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers.  Unfortunately, the trend over the years has been for the EC to be a rubber stamp of the state's pop vote.  I'm frankly shocked the Federal and SC courts sided with the laws punishing faithless electors.  Might as well get rid of the EC if they cannot vote against the results of the pop vote.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, frenchie said:

The NPV compact wouldn't affect the influence of populism in elections.  Elections enable populism  -  that's just an unavoidable issue with having elections.  

If 2016  proved anything, it's that the EC doesn't prevent or weaken populism, at all, in the first place. 

If anything, the EC currently encourages populism: the States where votes count for more, are the States with more less-educated voters.  The States where votes count for less, are the States with more educated voters. 

As far as maintaining the Balance of Power between States and Federal levels  -  the States are already protected, relative to the Federal, by having a Senate.  On top of which, who runs federal elections?  Every step  -  from deciding on the shape of the districts, to designing the ballots, to counting the popular vote and certifying the ballots  -  is run by the States.

The EC gives the States TOO MUCH power in Federal politics.

The imbalance of the states+EC strengthens populism. A dumbfuck state like Wyoming gets 2 Senators, a Critter and 3 EVs for a population slightly larger than Oakland. This is seriously stupid with stupid results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federalist Papers - # 68 

. . . desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, . . . . 

Shirley you understand that those are the honeyed words of oligarchs ? 

What today we refer to as our "corporate overlords"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I've watched this a few times. Yes, I see the clear parallel to cults. Here's another analysis of QAnon which I like.

However, I did not like Maher's example of Catherine Oxenberg. Oxenberg was her daughter's mother. That is how that works. But Maher's example confuses the personal with the political, retail with wholesale. Oxenberg can remind her daughter who she used to be. That doesn't work with Dog; that doesn't work with the I'd Rather Be Russian guys. That doesn't work with Hannity. That doesn't work with Lindsey Graham. In fact, I can't think of anyone who that would work with, outside of parent child. If you can think of anyone, lemme know.

In my family, we have some Trumpers at the outer edges. We don't scream at them; we don't actually expect them to change. We're polite at Thanksgiving on the rare occasions we see them (Rs, they do hate urbia). However, this means nothing about how I should deal with Republicans, politically, socially or sitting on the rail on a long tack.

This fallacy of hope is my problem with centrists in general; they see 'moderate' Republicans as kindred spirits with whom they think/hope they can strike a deal. But take a close look at that election, like at the top line. Republicans voted for this piece of shit in historic numbers, as in no Republican has ever received more votes, more than any winner ever. It's only because Democrats and independents voted for Biden in even larger numbers that he lost. These 'moderate' Republicans voted for that piece of shit. No, these moderate Republicans are not moderates at all. You are fooling yourself if you think so.

Oxenberg is smart and her daughter was no doubt a manipulative piece of work; i'm familiar with the archetype. However Oxenberg only had one problem to work and she had a very good reason for not abandoning it. She had a solvable personal problem, not a tribal political one. Her personal experience informs nothing, nada, zilch with regard to the tribal divide.

It's never absolute with tribes. When WW2 was over there were a few who still stridently espoused nazi doctrine to their dying day. No problem with rubbing their nose in that after a decade or so had gone by. However most, like 90%,  simply shut up and lived with the realization they had been bamboozled, and busting their balls on it would have slowed the realization down. It's remarkable how boring every national head they have picked since Hitler has been.

 That process takes time. Twice as hard to get people to admit they have been fooled than it is to fool them due to personal ego. The stages have to be gone through, denial, anger, bargaining. It's a process that must happen in it's own time, forcing it is counter productive in most cases. Forced by other people, that is. The events surrounding The Fall sped things along quite a bit. People go right past bargaining when they are standing on a pile of bloody rubble.       

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, frenchie said:

"fat ass"?  LOL. 

I'm 5'10 and weigh 140, tubs.

 

Good for you frenchie!

My bad, sorry for the mix up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

The imbalance of the states+EC strengthens populism. A dumbfuck state like Wyoming gets 2 Senators, a Critter and 3 EVs for a population slightly larger than Oakland. This is seriously stupid with stupid results.

So you're saying WY should have zero representation???  Talk about getting stupid results.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

It's never absolute with tribes. When WW2 was over there were a few who still stridently espoused nazi doctrine to their dying day. No problem with rubbing their nose in that after a decade or so had gone by. However most, like 90%,  simply shut up and lived with the realization they had been bamboozled, and busting their balls on it would have slowed the realization down. It's remarkable how boring every national head they have picked since Hitler has been.

 That process takes time. Twice as hard to get people to admit they have been fooled than it is to fool them due to personal ego. The stages have to be gone through, denial, anger, bargaining. It's a process that must happen in it's own time, forcing it is counter productive in most cases. Forced by other people, that is. The events surrounding The Fall sped things along quite a bit. People go right past bargaining when they are standing on a pile of bloody rubble.       

Yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

So you're saying WY should have zero representation???  Talk about getting stupid results.  

Well, in the case of Critters, Wyoming's population is 578,759 and the population of the US is 328.2 million.  328.2 million / 435 = 754482. So math says Wyoming doesn't deserve even 1 Critter, let alone 2 Senators and 3 EVs.

However, I'm not math and I didn't say Wyoming should have zero representation.  That was you. BTW, math also says WY doesn't even deserve an EV either. 328.2 million / 538 = 610037.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Well, in the case of Critters, Wyoming's population is 578,759 and the population of the US is 328.2 million.  328.2 million / 435 = 754482. So math says Wyoming doesn't deserve even 1 Critter, let alone 2 Senators and 3 EVs.

However, I'm not math and I didn't say Wyoming should have zero representation.  That was you. BTW, math also says WY doesn't even deserve an EV either. 328.2 million / 538 = 610037.

That's avoiding the question though.

What representation is a State like Wyoming entitled to, in your opinion, and why?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

That's avoiding the question though.

What representation is a State like Wyoming entitled to, in your opinion, and why?

FKT

I think the idea is that they're entitled to whatever representation an urban citizen from the coast who has never been to their state and will never go wants to give them. Which is why they're not too thrilled with the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, frenchie said:

The NPV compact wouldn't affect the influence of populism in elections.  Elections enable populism  -  that's just an unavoidable issue with having elections.  

If 2016  proved anything, it's that the EC doesn't prevent or weaken populism, at all, in the first place. 

If anything, the EC currently encourages populism: the States where votes count for more, are the States with more less-educated voters.  The States where votes count for less, are the States with more educated voters. 

As far as maintaining the Balance of Power between States and Federal levels  -  the States are already protected, relative to the Federal, by having a Senate.  On top of which, who runs federal elections?  Every step  -  from deciding on the shape of the districts, to designing the ballots, to counting the popular vote and certifying the ballots  -  is run by the States.

The EC gives the States TOO MUCH power in Federal politics.

NY'ers always tell us they're the smartest. Most seem about as smart as Trump to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quotidian Tom said:

I think the idea is that they're entitled to whatever representation an urban citizen from the coast who has never been to their state and will never go wants to give them. Which is why they're not too thrilled with the idea.

Yeah - also known as the 'fuck you we have 50.001% so we get to do what we want and you get to suck it' theory of politics.

Because that works so well in practice.

Australian Federation was set up so as to NOT allow a dictatorship by the big urban centres as well, and to this day you'll find a lot of people decrying that.

Well, if they live in Sydney or Melbourne anyway. Not so much the smaller States.

One of the reasons our Constitution is hard to change is because any change has to be approved by an overall majority *and* a majority of voters in a majority of States. So if NSW and Victoria say yea and Tasmania, South Australia and West Australia say no, it fails.

Before anyone asks - nobody cares about Queensland's opinion.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Federalist Papers - # 68 

. . . desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, . . . . 

Shirley you understand that those are the honeyed words of oligarchs ? 

What today we refer to as our "corporate overlords"? 

One could be cynical and say the Revolutionary War was a revolt of the 1% who had been getting rich for over 100 years by freeloading off the British spending a huge amount of money supplying and defending the 13 states. They in some ways pioneered privatize profit and socialize loss, they didn't mind at all British troops fighting French and Indian troops nor did they mind the Royal Navy keeping the sea lanes free. They just didn't want to PAY for it and the English slave lords in the colonies really got worried Parliament would outlaw slavery along with finally making an effort to collect taxes and then their African workers would be about as useful as their Irish workers, i.e prone to tell them to get fucked and run off to be hillbillies.

OTOH they greatly feared someone *exactly like Trump* who could stir up the deplorables of the day and get elected. They were not 100% wrong to fear universal suffrage and demagogues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

That's avoiding the question though.

What representation is a State like Wyoming entitled to, in your opinion, and why?

FKT

Here is the problem: The House gets proportional representation. The Senate absolutely does not, a state with a population of 4 people would get 2 senators as would a state with 40,000,000 people. This was by design, the smaller colonies feared being run over and left in the ditch by the bigger colonies.

This was not really a big deal when we had a large rural population. Now, not so much. We have a very large share of all the brains and all the money moving to certain areas mostly on the coasts and many rural areas emptying out. We are headed for a small mostly white mostly conservative population being able to rule over a much larger and much richer coastal population. That may not end well and is next to impossible to change. One thing that would help would be to make DC and Puerto Rico states, that would add 4 senators that would not be likely to vote along with Moscow Mitch.

Speaking of Moscow Mitch, about 99% of the USA had no choice in electing that vile excuse for a human being and yet somehow he singlehandedly controls the functioning or not of the entire country much more so than any president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

That's avoiding the question though.

What representation is a State like Wyoming entitled to, in your opinion, and why?

FKT

You are familiar with the proposals for the states of Jefferson and Cascadia, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

I think the idea is that they're entitled to whatever representation an urban citizen from the coast who has never been to their state and will never go wants to give them. Which is why they're not too thrilled with the idea.

Translated and corrected from Fakebertarian original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Translated and corrected from Fakebertarian original.

This goes along with 300,000 farmers are "Real Americans" but 6,000,000 New Yorkers are an alien species better off ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark K said:

It's never absolute with tribes. When WW2 was over there were a few who still stridently espoused nazi doctrine to their dying day. No problem with rubbing their nose in that after a decade or so had gone by. However most, like 90%,  simply shut up and lived with the realization they had been bamboozled, and busting their balls on it would have slowed the realization down. It's remarkable how boring every national head they have picked since Hitler has been.

 That process takes time. Twice as hard to get people to admit they have been fooled than it is to fool them due to personal ego. The stages have to be gone through, denial, anger, bargaining. It's a process that must happen in it's own time, forcing it is counter productive in most cases. Forced by other people, that is. The events surrounding The Fall sped things along quite a bit. People go right past bargaining when they are standing on a pile of bloody rubble.       

It's strange to compare the US political divide with Germany after WWII; it's almost a Godwin. Be that as it may, the US is not after its WWII. It's barely at the Battle of the Bulge, and November 3rd will not be celebrated in the future as VA day; so I'd prefer to just say, Nuts. In reality, Shitstain is sending B52s to the Middle East in preparation for bombing Iran. The Governor of Wyoming just tested positive for COVID after refusing to implement a mask mandate. And Mnuchin just locked up $455B in Congressionally authorized recovery funds out of Yellin's reach.

tenor.gif?itemid=15972701

No, we are not after our WWII. Going back to the Catherine Oxenberg advice. Yeah, she didn't yell at her daughter. But then she was very clear with her about who her daughter had been and who her daughter had become. Translating that to your WWII analogy, holocaust denial is a big no no. Then translating that to America today, well sorry, it's one of those idiomatic German phrases which doesn't translate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

 

Speaking of Moscow Mitch, about 99% of the USA had no choice in electing that vile excuse for a human being and yet somehow he singlehandedly controls the functioning or not of the entire country much more so than any president.

This I can't understand.  It is not as if it is in the constitution to be this way.  That this asshat elected by only the state of Kentucky, which gives tax money to a "creationist" museum, can be the sole person that decides what bills go before the senate for a vote is a travesty to democracy.  That is senate made up rules, and should be changed, but who in that position would give up the power?  It will take someone with decency and a love of what the country stands for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
48 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Translated and corrected from Fakebertarian original.

This goes along with 300,000 farmers are "Real Americans" but 6,000,000 New Yorkers are an alien species better off ignored.

The 6M Noo Yawkers are paying tax subsidies to the Real Americans, that is proof of their (the Real Americans') superiority.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

It's strange to compare the US political divide with Germany after WWII; it's almost a Godwin. Be that as it may, the US is not after its WWII. It's barely at the Battle of the Bulge, and November 3rd will not be celebrated in the future as VA day; so I'd prefer to just say, Nuts. In reality, Shitstain is sending B52s to the Middle East in preparation for bombing Iran. The Governor of Wyoming just tested positive for COVID after refusing to implement a mask mandate. And Mnuchin just locked up $455B in Congressionally authorized recovery funds out of Yellin's reach.

tenor.gif?itemid=15972701

No, we are not after our WWII. Going back to the Catherine Oxenberg advice. Yeah, she didn't yell at her daughter. But then she was very clear with her about who her daughter had been and who her daughter had become. Translating that to your WWII analogy, holocaust denial is a big no no. Then translating that to America today, well sorry, it's one of those idiomatic German phrases which don't translate.

WW II left Hitler dead, Germany utterly destroyed, and the Germans utterly dependent on the Allies for their very lives.

We are much closer to Germany after WW I. Germany was not destroyed and large numbers of Germans were convinced the end of the war was not fair and they were tricked. Sound familiar? Remember what happens next, the unhappy "We were robbed!" crew made violent street gangs in order to make the place ungovernable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

WW II left Hitler dead, Germany utterly destroyed, and the Germans utterly dependent on the Allies for their very lives.

We are much closer to Germany after WW I. Germany was not destroyed and large numbers of Germans were convinced the end of the war was not fair and they were tricked. Sound familiar? Remember what happens next, the unhappy "We were robbed!" crew made violent street gangs in order to make the place ungovernable.

And then there was East Germany! Oy vey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

It's strange to compare the US political divide with Germany after WWII; it's almost a Godwin. Be that as it may, the US is not after its WWII. It's barely at the Battle of the Bulge, and November 3rd will not be celebrated in the future as VA day; so I'd prefer to just say, Nuts. In reality, Shitstain is sending B52s to the Middle East in preparation for bombing Iran. The Governor of Wyoming just tested positive for COVID after refusing to implement a mask mandate. And Mnuchin just locked up $455B in Congressionally authorized recovery funds out of Yellin's reach.

tenor.gif?itemid=15972701

No, we are not after our WWII. Going back to the Catherine Oxenberg advice. Yeah, she didn't yell at her daughter. But then she was very clear with her about who her daughter had been and who her daughter had become. Translating that to your WWII analogy, holocaust denial is a big no no. Then translating that to America today, well sorry, it's one of those idiomatic German phrases which doesn't translate.

True, but addressing the root cause, tribalism, and those are but symptoms. Tribalism is what gives clowns power. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mark K said:

True, but addressing the root cause, tribalism, and those are but symptoms. Tribalism is what gives clowns power. 

I'm going to rearrange that a little. I don't think tribalism is a cause so much as it is an effect. And if you think the elk are reachable in any way as victims of a con man then you can't think of them as a tribe. Still, I do think it is mostly tribal and I think the vast majority are unreachable. Best case scenario:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

OTOH they greatly feared someone *exactly like Trump* who could stir up the deplorables of the day and get elected. They were not 100% wrong to fear universal suffrage and demagogues.

Oligarchies have been making that claim since at least Plato, and they have been proven wrong time and again. 

Plato too warned of the fickle mob, and instead backed the seizure of power in Athens by the Thirty Tyrants, among whom were several of Plato's proteges. 

The Tyrants proved to be corrupt self-serving thugs, far far worse than the democracy they overthrew. 

The US needs much MORE democracy, not less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 Tribalism is what gives clowns power. 

There has never been a "tribe" with hundreds of millions of members. It is a physical and logical impossibility. 

Such a notion is just plain silly. 

You are mistaking nationalism for tribalism. 

There is an extensive literature on the former; don't confuse yourself by focusing on the latter. 

You're welcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I'm going to rearrange that a little. I don't think tribalism is a cause so much as it is an effect. And if you think the elk are reachable in any way as victims of a con man then you can't think of them as a tribe. Still, I do think it is mostly tribal and I think the vast majority are unreachable. Best case scenario:

 

My WAG is about 50 million of the 70 are reachable, in time. Unlikely they will ever be something one can label liberals but they will ignore Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

And then there was East Germany! Oy vey.

There was a lot more in-between the end of WWI and the formation of East Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

NY'ers always tell us they're the smartest. Most seem about as smart as Trump to me.

Nothing anywhere in my post said anything about intelligence.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

You are familiar with the proposals for the states of Jefferson and Cascadia, no?

Still avoiding answering the question, aren't you?

It's a simple question. You've stated or at least implied that you think the status quo is unfair. What's your proposal to replace it? Or are you just doing a Doggy-style whine about how it's soooo unfair in reverse?

What representation is a State like Wyoming entitled to, in your opinion?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The 6M Noo Yawkers are paying tax subsidies to the Real Americans, that is proof of their (the Real Americans') superiority.

- DSK

It's all fun and all to slag off at the small rural States, but what representation *are* they entitled to, in your opinion?

It's a simple question.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Still avoiding answering the question, aren't you?

It's a simple question. You've stated or at least implied that you think the status quo is unfair. What's your proposal to replace it? Or are you just doing a Doggy-style whine about how it's soooo unfair in reverse?

What representation is a State like Wyoming entitled to, in your opinion?

FKT

Are you familiar with the proposals for the states of Jefferson and Cascadia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Are you familiar with the proposals for the states of Jefferson and Cascadia?

OK I've asked the question twice and you've ducked it twice, which tells me that you have no intention of answering and are trying to change the discussion to something you do want to talk about.

So basically you either have NFI what representation those small States should have and are just venting to feel better - like Doggy, it's all sooo unfair - or you'd do your best to disenfranchise them but lack the balls to actually say so publicly.

Whatever, it's not worth pursuing with you. I've gotten all the information I need.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

NY'ers always tell us they're the smartest. Most seem about as smart as Trump to me.

Let's see. Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon is from NYC. Boarding school in NH. Their Secretary of State Edward Buchanan is from Fort Lauderdale, your neck of the woods. Senator Mike Enzi is from Bremerton, WA. Senator John Barrossa is from Reading PA. Liz Cheney is from Madison Wisconsin. No one seems to be born there.

How do you spell carpetbagger anyhow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

It's all fun and all to slag off at the small rural States, but what representation *are* they entitled to, in your opinion?

It's a simple question.

FKT

I think that having slightly displaced representation is fine, that's the way it was originally set up to allay the smaller states fears of being dominated by the bigger. ones. I don't mind the Senate and the EC having an additive ratio that slants it slightly toward them.

If they want to put the shoe on the other foot though, they need to back off on being such 'takers.' Right now, their health care and their education systems really suck and they trying to gouge even more benefit out of the surrounding blue states. NC public schools are far below average in grades 1 thru 12 (grammar and/or grade school) but the university system is still pretty good... used to be world class and the red-state dumbasses in our legislature are busy chopping it down.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Trump is having a presser now.  It’s jaw dropping even for him

 

Thanks!  Only Fox News is covering it, AFAICT.    He is totally unhinged, deranged babbling garbage....

 

EDIT... Even Trump's sycophant supporters on Fox don't believe his lies any more.  I hope the Murdoch family all rot in hell for the evil they have promoted all these years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I can't find it, but I'm sure it will be in repeat somewhere very soon. 

 

I was fortunate to see Fakenews post minutes after he posted, and found on Fox.  Yes it will be replayed, ad nauseum!!!  Trump makes outrageous, unfounded claims of thousands of stolen votes that threw an election that he won, to Biden..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice! said:

You spelled "Karen" wrong.

She calls herself The Kraken, apparently. So I mashed them together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

She calls herself The Kraken, apparently. So I mashed them together.

My bad I missed that. I assumed you just said Kraken but with a typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

She calls herself The Kraken, apparently. So I mashed them together.

 

"Sidney Powell's 'Kraken' Voter Fraud Lawsuits Ridiculed by Legal Experts Over Typos, Lack of Evidence

BY EWAN PALMER ON 11/26/20 AT 9:57 AM EST"
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

 

I was fortunate to see Fakenews post minutes after he posted, and found on Fox.  Yes it will be replayed, ad nauseum!!!  Trump makes outrageous, unfounded claims of thousands of stolen votes that threw an election that he won, to Biden..

I liked the part where he told Jeff Mason “don’t talk to me like that. I’m the President of the United States”

That guy really gets under his skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, frenchie said:
16 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

NY'ers always tell us they're the smartest. Most seem about as smart as Trump to me.

Nothing anywhere in my post said anything about intelligence.

Gun lunatic Floriduh man talking about "smart" :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billy backstay said:

Thanks!  Only Fox News is covering it, AFAICT.    He is totally unhinged, deranged babbling garbage....

EDIT... Even Trump's sycophant supporters on Fox don't believe his lies any more.  I hope the Murdoch family all rot in hell for the evil they have promoted all these years...

They should us Rupe as the model for a villain in a Bond movie.

Do a really blatant Roman a Clef on the asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

They should us Rupe as the model for a villain in a Bond movie.

Do a really blatant Roman a Clef on the asshole.

 

You want an Italian harelip to rim Trump, am I reading that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

What representation is a State like Wyoming entitled to, in your opinion, and why?

I think Montana + Wyoming have to team together with ND + SD = 3.3M.  That's about 1% of the population of the US.

1% of 100 Senators = 1 Senator.

Seems fair; they can share. Math ain't hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zonker said:

I think Montana + Wyoming have to team together with ND + SD = 3.3M.  That's about 1% of the population of the US.

1% of 100 Senators = 1 Senator.

Seems fair; they can share. Math ain't hard.

How does it work in Canada?

A lot of you guys basically want to engage in revisionist politics but don't seem to want to come out & say so. Just like Australia, you've a perfectly adequate mechanism for altering your Constitution. If you think Senate numbers should be based purely on population, frame an amendment. Go for it.

The point you all like to ignore is - without those original political protections, there *wouldn't* be a USA. Or Australia. The smaller States would never have signed up. I basically have very little time for your revisionist attitudes when they're coupled with a complete lack of will to actually *use* the alteration mechanisms provided - most likely because you know you'd lose. You want to find some magic end run around a political reality that you don't like. Amazingly, that reminds me of other groups who'd like to do the same thing. I wonder what the latest example of *that* is?

So suck it up and deal with current reality if you lack the enthusiasm to change it.

FWIW while I can vote in Tasmania, I don't - I'm on the NSW electoral roll. Before anyone goes for the personal attack on my living in a sparsely populated State.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't need a Constitutional Amendment.  Just increase the number of House seats.  That's the actual root of the problem anyways. 

And it only requires control of the House, Senate, and Presidency (...and the political will to tell the small States to Suck It Up...) to change that. 

 

If the size of the House had kept pace with population, since founding: there'd be about 6,000 Representatives, now.

If it'd kept pace with population growth, just since 1929 (when it got capped, permanently, at 435): there would be about 1,600 Representatives.

You could set it as high as about 11,000 without any Constitutional issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
12 hours ago, frenchie said:
On 11/26/2020 at 4:55 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

NY'ers always tell us they're the smartest. Most seem about as smart as Trump to me.

Nothing anywhere in my post said anything about intelligence.

Gun lunatic Floriduh man talking about "smart"

Frenchie, sorry, should have said better educated.

Sloopy, Nothing anywhere in my post said anything about guns so take your gungrabby insults back to Cruising Anarchy again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, frenchie said:

Don't need a Constitutional Amendment.  Just increase the number of House seats.  That's the actual root of the problem anyways. 

And it only requires control of the House, Senate, and Presidency (...and the political will to tell the small States to Suck It Up...) to change that. 

 

If the size of the House had kept pace with population, since founding: there'd be about 6,000 Representatives, now.

If it'd kept pace with population growth, just since 1929 (when it got capped, permanently, at 435): there would be about 1,600 Representatives.

You could set it as high as about 11,000 without any Constitutional issue.

 

AbsoFUCKINGlutely.  We need to keep them in their home district and let them meet in convention centers for a couple of weeks a year with an additional one week in DC every two  for their inaugurations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 11:00 AM, AJ Oliver said:

Jeebus, what a jerk; nothing but name calling as usual. 

Dude...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, frenchie said:

Don't need a Constitutional Amendment.  Just increase the number of House seats.  That's the actual root of the problem anyways. 

And it only requires control of the House, Senate, and Presidency (...and the political will to tell the small States to Suck It Up...) to change that. 

 

If the size of the House had kept pace with population, since founding: there'd be about 6,000 Representatives, now.

If it'd kept pace with population growth, just since 1929 (when it got capped, permanently, at 435): there would be about 1,600 Representatives.

You could set it as high as about 11,000 without any Constitutional issue.

 

That would do nothing, it isn't the House that is the issue, it is the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ishmael said:

You want an Italian harelip to rim Trump, am I reading that right?

That's pretty fucking out there, even for you Ish. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, frenchie said:

Don't need a Constitutional Amendment.  Just increase the number of House seats.  That's the actual root of the problem anyways. 

And it only requires control of the House, Senate, and Presidency (...and the political will to tell the small States to Suck It Up...) to change that. 

 

If the size of the House had kept pace with population, since founding: there'd be about 6,000 Representatives, now.

If it'd kept pace with population growth, just since 1929 (when it got capped, permanently, at 435): there would be about 1,600 Representatives.

You could set it as high as about 11,000 without any Constitutional issue.

 

Yeah - a lot would get done then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Yeah - a lot would get done then.

With 11,000 representatives the lobbyists would have a nervous breakdown figuring out who to bribe for one thing :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mark K said:

My WAG is about 50 million of the 70 are reachable, in time. Unlikely they will ever be something one can label liberals but they will ignore Trump.  

Trump who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

How does it work in Canada?

A lot of you guys basically want to engage in revisionist politics but don't seem to want to come out & say so. Just like Australia, you've a perfectly adequate mechanism for altering your Constitution. If you think Senate numbers should be based purely on population, frame an amendment. Go for it.

The point you all like to ignore is - without those original political protections, there *wouldn't* be a USA. Or Australia. The smaller States would never have signed up. I basically have very little time for your revisionist attitudes when they're coupled with a complete lack of will to actually *use* the alteration mechanisms provided - most likely because you know you'd lose. You want to find some magic end run around a political reality that you don't like. Amazingly, that reminds me of other groups who'd like to do the same thing. I wonder what the latest example of *that* is?

So suck it up and deal with current reality if you lack the enthusiasm to change it.

 

Ding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Frenchie, sorry, should have said better educated.

I also didn't single out NY.   

We rank 10th for % with a bachelor's, 5th for % having a postgrad... but 41st (!) for finishing highschool.  

2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

That would do nothing, it isn't the House that is the issue, it is the Senate.

It would fix the EC, since each State gets one Elector per Senator from that State + one Elector per House Rep from that State. 

If we had 1000 congressional reps, WY would gain an electoral vote, and have 4... out of 1104.

It would also mitigate the disparities in how many people a Representative represents: Greg Gianforte (Montana's sole rep) represents nearly twice as many people as Liz Cheney (Wyoming's sole rep).  In a 1000-member House, WY would have 2, MT 4.  

The Senate issue is a separate problem.  That was designed in, on purpose: it's the whole point of having a Senate. 

And it would need a Constitutional Amendment to "fix" the Senate: good fucking luck getting 3/4 of the States to ratify that.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites