by wj
I know the previous post says it’s an open thread. But I didn’t want to hijack the poetry discussion. So here’s a new one.
Two things. First, his stupid tariffs notwithstanding, Trump appears to be helping Canada’s economy on one front: building their high tech industry. He is making it ever harder for high tech talent to move to the US. Whereas Canada has taken the opposite approach
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/10/08/h-1b-as-immigration-furor-roils-silicon-valley-canada-smoothes-way-for-techies/
And there are signs that it’s working.
So not only is his enthusiasm for dirty power leaving the rest of the world to dominate in clean power technology. He’s helping others contest US dominance of the computer industry as well. Brilliant.
Second, we have a reminder that the Mueller probe isn’t just about Russian interference. It appears that the Trump campaign was trying to get Israeli firms to do the same kind of fake social media accounts, etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/us/politics/rick-gates-psy-group-trump.html
Finally it breaks into the open. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/10/heres-whats-really-wrong-with-the-supreme-court-its-too-damn-powerful/
I’ll go a touch further, the power of the Supreme Court deeply warps the political system because the only way to fix its bad rulings (from whatever your perspective is) is to stick with a coalition, no matter how ugly it gets, for 30+ years.
Finally it breaks into the open. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/10/heres-whats-really-wrong-with-the-supreme-court-its-too-damn-powerful/
I’ll go a touch further, the power of the Supreme Court deeply warps the political system because the only way to fix its bad rulings (from whatever your perspective is) is to stick with a coalition, no matter how ugly it gets, for 30+ years.
I’d say it’s the constitutional amendment process, and the undemocratic makeup of the House and Senate, that deeply warps the political system.
Also Drum is ranting. “Gay marriage” is the wrong way to view it – it’s not a “right” to marry the gay, it’s a right to be free from government discrimination on the basis of sex.
This “It does have something to do with Congress’s habit of passing vague laws that are wide open for multiple interpretations” is also wrong. The big Court fights are mostly if not all over Constitutional issues, not whether some statute gives someone a remedy or what not.
Also, Jonah Goldberg is full of sh1t. The proper decision tree starts with Garland’s nomination in 2016, which of course Goldberg fails to mention. At all.
I’d say it’s the constitutional amendment process, and the undemocratic makeup of the House and Senate, that deeply warps the political system.
Also Drum is ranting. “Gay marriage” is the wrong way to view it – it’s not a “right” to marry the gay, it’s a right to be free from government discrimination on the basis of sex.
This “It does have something to do with Congress’s habit of passing vague laws that are wide open for multiple interpretations” is also wrong. The big Court fights are mostly if not all over Constitutional issues, not whether some statute gives someone a remedy or what not.
Also, Jonah Goldberg is full of sh1t. The proper decision tree starts with Garland’s nomination in 2016, which of course Goldberg fails to mention. At all.
The proper decision tree doesn’t start with Garland. The problem,issue etc for the Democrats is that they went from controlling all three non judicial government bodies in 2009 to controlling only the presidency in 2016. And then not that. And then all three. All the numbers excuses aside that’s an epic fail.
People forget the Dems had 60 seats for a bright shining moment and still got rid of the filibuster for judges once they only had 59.
It can be traced back further, an ever increasing demand to be able to wield power rather than govern. But it didn’t start with Garland or Trump.
Just 10 years ago the Dems had a wave, and were thrown out. Instead of going on about the demise of the GOP maybe the Dems should figure out how to turn around their demise.
They are struggling to do that even with massive help from Trump. Because they insult, demean and ignore huge swaths of the country in order to attract single issue voters.
At the same time Congress has abdicated much of its responsibility to the executive administrators. Allowing for more wielding power.
The basics of our governmental structure arent what needs to be fixed, it’s the acceptance of their responsibility by each branch so the initial checks and balances are ]put back in place that needs to occur.
The proper decision tree doesn’t start with Garland. The problem,issue etc for the Democrats is that they went from controlling all three non judicial government bodies in 2009 to controlling only the presidency in 2016. And then not that. And then all three. All the numbers excuses aside that’s an epic fail.
People forget the Dems had 60 seats for a bright shining moment and still got rid of the filibuster for judges once they only had 59.
It can be traced back further, an ever increasing demand to be able to wield power rather than govern. But it didn’t start with Garland or Trump.
Just 10 years ago the Dems had a wave, and were thrown out. Instead of going on about the demise of the GOP maybe the Dems should figure out how to turn around their demise.
They are struggling to do that even with massive help from Trump. Because they insult, demean and ignore huge swaths of the country in order to attract single issue voters.
At the same time Congress has abdicated much of its responsibility to the executive administrators. Allowing for more wielding power.
The basics of our governmental structure arent what needs to be fixed, it’s the acceptance of their responsibility by each branch so the initial checks and balances are ]put back in place that needs to occur.
Sebastian,
See also this by Jack Balkin. Strikes me as a pretty sound analysis.
bobbyp
Sebastian,
See also this by Jack Balkin. Strikes me as a pretty sound analysis.
bobbyp
an ever increasing demand to be able to wield power rather than govern
they insult, demean and ignore huge swaths of the country
I’m not sure these statements are accurate.
The (R)’s hold a majority in the Senate, yet represent 44% of the population. Trump lost the popular vote decisively, yet he is POTUS.
That seems problematic to me.
I get the historical precedent of the whole federalism thing. I just think it’s become dysfunctional. I’m freaking sick and tired of a situation where a guy like McConnell, who personally represents about 0.7% – not 7 percent, zero-point-seven percent – of the population, being able to screw over more than half the country.
That sucks.
There were good reasons for the Electoral College in 1789. By and large, they no longer exist. It’s an anachronism.
I don’t disagree that the various branches need a reset on what their relative responsibilities are.
an ever increasing demand to be able to wield power rather than govern
they insult, demean and ignore huge swaths of the country
I’m not sure these statements are accurate.
The (R)’s hold a majority in the Senate, yet represent 44% of the population. Trump lost the popular vote decisively, yet he is POTUS.
That seems problematic to me.
I get the historical precedent of the whole federalism thing. I just think it’s become dysfunctional. I’m freaking sick and tired of a situation where a guy like McConnell, who personally represents about 0.7% – not 7 percent, zero-point-seven percent – of the population, being able to screw over more than half the country.
That sucks.
There were good reasons for the Electoral College in 1789. By and large, they no longer exist. It’s an anachronism.
I don’t disagree that the various branches need a reset on what their relative responsibilities are.
Marty, on the Democrats: … they insult, demean and ignore huge swaths of the country in order to attract single issue voters.
“Single issue voters” like gun fetishists and anti-abortionists?
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the SCOTUS now contains a pervert, a perjurer, and a receiver of stolen goods. All appointed by Republicans catering to gun fetishists and anti-abortionists; the latter two by Mitch McConnell and He, Trump — paragons of civility who would never insult, demean, or ignore anybody.
And chances are, McConnell and He, Trump will get to place one or two more “conservatives” on the SCOTUS because nothing is sacred to them except their promises to gun fetishists and anti-abortionists. Whether a SCOTUS packed with RWNJs will turn the American electorate into single-issue voters determined to pack the court will be interesting to watch.
–TP
Marty, on the Democrats: … they insult, demean and ignore huge swaths of the country in order to attract single issue voters.
“Single issue voters” like gun fetishists and anti-abortionists?
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the SCOTUS now contains a pervert, a perjurer, and a receiver of stolen goods. All appointed by Republicans catering to gun fetishists and anti-abortionists; the latter two by Mitch McConnell and He, Trump — paragons of civility who would never insult, demean, or ignore anybody.
And chances are, McConnell and He, Trump will get to place one or two more “conservatives” on the SCOTUS because nothing is sacred to them except their promises to gun fetishists and anti-abortionists. Whether a SCOTUS packed with RWNJs will turn the American electorate into single-issue voters determined to pack the court will be interesting to watch.
–TP
There were good reasons for the Electoral College in 1789. By and large, they no longer exist. It’s an anachronism.
But, given the requirements to amend the Constitution by getting 3/4 of the states to sign off, there’s no way we will get rid of it. (Unless we went the Constitutional Convention route. Which has the prospect for all kinds of problems.)
There were good reasons for the Electoral College in 1789. By and large, they no longer exist. It’s an anachronism.
But, given the requirements to amend the Constitution by getting 3/4 of the states to sign off, there’s no way we will get rid of it. (Unless we went the Constitutional Convention route. Which has the prospect for all kinds of problems.)
Marty,
The Dems controlled both the Congress (with a supermajority) and the Presidency for a very brief time, and that situation was wiped out in the 2010 elections.
You may also find this hard to believe, but there has been a Republican majority on the Supreme Court since the 1980’s. True story.
Personally, I feel if we had swung a few bankers from lamp posts in 2009, worked harder to alleviate the financial distress of overextended home owners, and had a much bigger stimulus, that the Dems would have done a whole lot better in the 2010 election.
But all that went out the window after the mid-terms.
As for denigrating one’s political opponents, well pot, kettle. I’ve been called an ‘un-American’ for 50 years. I don’t ask my conservative opponents to be more civil. I ask for their total abject surrender.
Regards,
Marty,
The Dems controlled both the Congress (with a supermajority) and the Presidency for a very brief time, and that situation was wiped out in the 2010 elections.
You may also find this hard to believe, but there has been a Republican majority on the Supreme Court since the 1980’s. True story.
Personally, I feel if we had swung a few bankers from lamp posts in 2009, worked harder to alleviate the financial distress of overextended home owners, and had a much bigger stimulus, that the Dems would have done a whole lot better in the 2010 election.
But all that went out the window after the mid-terms.
As for denigrating one’s political opponents, well pot, kettle. I’ve been called an ‘un-American’ for 50 years. I don’t ask my conservative opponents to be more civil. I ask for their total abject surrender.
Regards,
“All appointed by Republicans catering to gun fetishists and anti-abortionists…”
That’s Kevin Drum’s point. They aren’t natural allies. They have to hang together in a weird alliance, for 30+ years in order to have a chance at changing their issue. In a world with a stronger Congress and weaker Supreme Court that wouldn’t be the case. In a world where you were allowed to make legislative changes to protect the fetus in the second trimester (wanted by 65-70% of the population) but allow abortion in the first (wanted by about 75% of the population) it would be done, and they wouldn’t need to ally with the gun fetishists. The gun fetishits have a constitutional claim of some sort, so outright bans probably would have trouble, but their Supreme Court level clout would be much lower so all sorts of common sense laws might be possible.
“All appointed by Republicans catering to gun fetishists and anti-abortionists…”
That’s Kevin Drum’s point. They aren’t natural allies. They have to hang together in a weird alliance, for 30+ years in order to have a chance at changing their issue. In a world with a stronger Congress and weaker Supreme Court that wouldn’t be the case. In a world where you were allowed to make legislative changes to protect the fetus in the second trimester (wanted by 65-70% of the population) but allow abortion in the first (wanted by about 75% of the population) it would be done, and they wouldn’t need to ally with the gun fetishists. The gun fetishits have a constitutional claim of some sort, so outright bans probably would have trouble, but their Supreme Court level clout would be much lower so all sorts of common sense laws might be possible.
denigrating ones political opponents…
is a positively polite way of putting it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/09/republican-attack-ads-midterms-876287
denigrating ones political opponents…
is a positively polite way of putting it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/09/republican-attack-ads-midterms-876287
They aren’t natural allies.
They’re almost all white, both have no issues with racial exclusion, they tend to be more rural, and tend to share a conservative sensibility, especially the socially conservative sensibility as opposed to economic conservatism.
So no, contrary to your assertion, they are in fact natural political allies.
They aren’t natural allies.
They’re almost all white, both have no issues with racial exclusion, they tend to be more rural, and tend to share a conservative sensibility, especially the socially conservative sensibility as opposed to economic conservatism.
So no, contrary to your assertion, they are in fact natural political allies.
A slightly hopeful piece in today’s NYT about some white evangelical women leaning towards Beto O’Rourke:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/us/politics/texas-beto-orourke-evangelicals-women.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
On the other hand, of the 40,000 women who responded to the NYT’s question about the Kavanaugh confirmation, a surprising number (to me, although the paper does not give percentages) seemed pleased about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/reader-center/women-kavanaugh-confirmation.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Reader%20Center
A slightly hopeful piece in today’s NYT about some white evangelical women leaning towards Beto O’Rourke:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/us/politics/texas-beto-orourke-evangelicals-women.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
On the other hand, of the 40,000 women who responded to the NYT’s question about the Kavanaugh confirmation, a surprising number (to me, although the paper does not give percentages) seemed pleased about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/reader-center/women-kavanaugh-confirmation.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Reader%20Center
Another good take.
I still like being ruthless, because so much is at stake. But good points, Matty.
Another good take.
I still like being ruthless, because so much is at stake. But good points, Matty.
Personally, I feel if we had swung a few bankers from lamp posts in 2009, worked harder to alleviate the financial distress of overextended home owners, and had a much bigger stimulus, that the Dems would have done a whole lot better in the 2010 election.
Amen.
And, would have done so, because the country would have been much better off.
I’ve been called an ‘un-American’ for 50 years.
Right on.
Plus, now I’m an elite. I’m disappointed, I thought the pay would be better.
Personally, I feel if we had swung a few bankers from lamp posts in 2009, worked harder to alleviate the financial distress of overextended home owners, and had a much bigger stimulus, that the Dems would have done a whole lot better in the 2010 election.
Amen.
And, would have done so, because the country would have been much better off.
I’ve been called an ‘un-American’ for 50 years.
Right on.
Plus, now I’m an elite. I’m disappointed, I thought the pay would be better.
Personally, I feel if we had swung a few bankers from lamp posts in 2009, worked harder to alleviate the financial distress of overextended home owners, and had a much bigger stimulus, that the Dems would have done a whole lot better in the 2010 election.
Amen.
And, would have done so, because the country would have been much better off.
I’ve been called an ‘un-American’ for 50 years.
Right on.
Plus, now I’m an elite. I’m disappointed, I thought the pay would be better.
Personally, I feel if we had swung a few bankers from lamp posts in 2009, worked harder to alleviate the financial distress of overextended home owners, and had a much bigger stimulus, that the Dems would have done a whole lot better in the 2010 election.
Amen.
And, would have done so, because the country would have been much better off.
I’ve been called an ‘un-American’ for 50 years.
Right on.
Plus, now I’m an elite. I’m disappointed, I thought the pay would be better.
It’s rural America. It’s where I came from. We always refer to ourselves as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real, America.
Dan Quayle
It’s rural America. It’s where I came from. We always refer to ourselves as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real, America.
Dan Quayle
We always refer to ourselves as real America.
There is nothing in modern American discourse that offends me more than this. Nothing.
I followed this with a fairly lengthy rant, but none of it is anything you all haven’t heard 100 times.
So I’ll just leave it there.
Dan Quayle can kiss my keister.
We always refer to ourselves as real America.
There is nothing in modern American discourse that offends me more than this. Nothing.
I followed this with a fairly lengthy rant, but none of it is anything you all haven’t heard 100 times.
So I’ll just leave it there.
Dan Quayle can kiss my keister.
Plus, now I’m an elite. I’m disappointed, I thought the pay would be better.
I was going to agree, in spades.
But then I realized that everybody who isn’t all of white, uneducated, and poor counts as an “elite” in current parlance. Explains why the pay isn’t better….
Plus, now I’m an elite. I’m disappointed, I thought the pay would be better.
I was going to agree, in spades.
But then I realized that everybody who isn’t all of white, uneducated, and poor counts as an “elite” in current parlance. Explains why the pay isn’t better….
What’s become dysfunctional about our system is people not in power cherry picking stats. If we had a majority required Presidential election the 7m that didnt vote for either one would have decided the runoff.
Hilary didn’t win by a landslide 3m votes out of 130m cast isn’t a landslide. It’s a few more votes in the blue states.
The Senate was designed for just the numbers you’re describing, the House is supposed to even things up on that score.
I mean, honestly, if the situation were reversed wouldn’t be having the same argument, just swap the name?
The system ain’t broke, the distinction of why you vote for a rep and why you vote for a senator are long gone. But that’s what should be fixed.
What’s become dysfunctional about our system is people not in power cherry picking stats. If we had a majority required Presidential election the 7m that didnt vote for either one would have decided the runoff.
Hilary didn’t win by a landslide 3m votes out of 130m cast isn’t a landslide. It’s a few more votes in the blue states.
The Senate was designed for just the numbers you’re describing, the House is supposed to even things up on that score.
I mean, honestly, if the situation were reversed wouldn’t be having the same argument, just swap the name?
The system ain’t broke, the distinction of why you vote for a rep and why you vote for a senator are long gone. But that’s what should be fixed.
No Marty, Dems to not demean huge swaths of the country. Huge swaths of the country demean everyone but themselves and then have a pity party about their self-inflicted isolation
No Marty, Dems to not demean huge swaths of the country. Huge swaths of the country demean everyone but themselves and then have a pity party about their self-inflicted isolation
10 million more people voted against Trump than for him. And yet, he’s the president.
Those are my “stats”.
10 million more people voted against Trump than for him. And yet, he’s the president.
Those are my “stats”.
7 million more voted against Hilary than voted for her. The difference is 3m.
Cherry picking
7 million more voted against Hilary than voted for her. The difference is 3m.
Cherry picking
There is nothing in modern American discourse that offends me more than this. Nothing.
Yes. It really is a vicious thing to say, with the viciousness hidden behind a tone of politeness. And it is meant to foment division and hatred just as surely Clickbait’s more overtly hateful performances.
But hey, as long as you use a civil tone, it doesn’t matter what you actually say or do, or whom you hurt.
There is nothing in modern American discourse that offends me more than this. Nothing.
Yes. It really is a vicious thing to say, with the viciousness hidden behind a tone of politeness. And it is meant to foment division and hatred just as surely Clickbait’s more overtly hateful performances.
But hey, as long as you use a civil tone, it doesn’t matter what you actually say or do, or whom you hurt.
Clinton 48.18%
Trump 46.09%
Clinton 48.18%
Trump 46.09%
Marty seems happy with his choices. No need to try to change his mind.
I find it hugely depressing that the monumental story about the Trump family’s fraud is not even news, and not persuasive in the least to people like Marty. But then I remember that Marty is about pure tribalism. It’s incredibly depressing that two-year-olds are sitting before immigration judges, without representation, and are sent to concentration camps. We should be storming that place, and I feel inadequate for not organizing a militant action. Whereas, the embryo faction? They don’t care about the two-year-olds nearly as much as the embryos. Climate change? We have 12 years. We have at least 2 1/2 more with Trump. Frat boy supreme court justices? Barf O’Kavanaugh. What a sickening spectacle our country is.
It’s getting to be too much. I’m working for, and hoping for, some improvement in November. If we fall short, I feel pretty hopeless. Actually, I feel pretty hopeless already. Engage with Marty? He’s still motivated by Hillary hatred. Not a productive conversation at this point.
Marty seems happy with his choices. No need to try to change his mind.
I find it hugely depressing that the monumental story about the Trump family’s fraud is not even news, and not persuasive in the least to people like Marty. But then I remember that Marty is about pure tribalism. It’s incredibly depressing that two-year-olds are sitting before immigration judges, without representation, and are sent to concentration camps. We should be storming that place, and I feel inadequate for not organizing a militant action. Whereas, the embryo faction? They don’t care about the two-year-olds nearly as much as the embryos. Climate change? We have 12 years. We have at least 2 1/2 more with Trump. Frat boy supreme court justices? Barf O’Kavanaugh. What a sickening spectacle our country is.
It’s getting to be too much. I’m working for, and hoping for, some improvement in November. If we fall short, I feel pretty hopeless. Actually, I feel pretty hopeless already. Engage with Marty? He’s still motivated by Hillary hatred. Not a productive conversation at this point.
We’re dealing with pure fucking Evil:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-the-khashoggi-mystery-now-a-us-scandal
We’d need to kill it. Eliminate it.
There are some who have the mp brand sizzling on their asses, by choice.
Perhaps they can be re-educated. I doubt it.
We’re dealing with pure fucking Evil:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-the-khashoggi-mystery-now-a-us-scandal
We’d need to kill it. Eliminate it.
There are some who have the mp brand sizzling on their asses, by choice.
Perhaps they can be re-educated. I doubt it.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/10/10/proud-to-be-a-democrat-concerning-heidi-heitkamp/
Kill it.
What are you going you fucking c*nt republicans, call the government to protect your anti-American filthy, worthless lives?
Fuck you, ya vermin.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/10/10/proud-to-be-a-democrat-concerning-heidi-heitkamp/
Kill it.
What are you going you fucking c*nt republicans, call the government to protect your anti-American filthy, worthless lives?
Fuck you, ya vermin.
Want to bounce off the comment by bobbyp.
I still like being ruthless, because so much is at stake. But good points, Matty.
The Yglesias article is good, but what he doesn’t say (though I’m sure he realizes it) is that Dems can scream until they are blue in the face that they are doing something not because it is ruthless, but because it is good policy, but it will be portrayed as ruthlessness. DC, Puerto Rico as states? Dems just trying to get more seats. Simplifying voter registration? Dems trying to get dead people and immigrants to vote. Want everyone to have insurance? Just trying to undercut Republicans and create death panels.
The current atmosphere means that anything that the Dems do would be considered ‘ruthless’, so I’m not sure it is worth the time worrying if it is or not.
Want to bounce off the comment by bobbyp.
I still like being ruthless, because so much is at stake. But good points, Matty.
The Yglesias article is good, but what he doesn’t say (though I’m sure he realizes it) is that Dems can scream until they are blue in the face that they are doing something not because it is ruthless, but because it is good policy, but it will be portrayed as ruthlessness. DC, Puerto Rico as states? Dems just trying to get more seats. Simplifying voter registration? Dems trying to get dead people and immigrants to vote. Want everyone to have insurance? Just trying to undercut Republicans and create death panels.
The current atmosphere means that anything that the Dems do would be considered ‘ruthless’, so I’m not sure it is worth the time worrying if it is or not.
The difference is 3m.
I.e., Trump lost the popular vote. More people wanted somebody else. And yet, there he is.
Second time in 20 years. Keep digging that hole.
Next topic.
The Senate was designed for just the numbers you’re describing
Let’s talk about the Senate.
I’m not sure it’s accurate to say the Senate – and specifically the equal representation per state thing – was “designed”, at all. It surely was not the only option on the table, or even the option seen as most desirable. It was a compromise, just like the “3/5 of a person” thing. It was the price of getting states like Delaware to sign on the bottom line.
It was also modeled on the House of Lords, and was intended among other things to safeguard the interests of people of property against those of the population at large.
As far as numbers, the difference in size between the largest state at the time and the smallest was about 10 or 11 to one. Now it’s 70 to one.
It is theoretically possible for a majority in the Senate to represent 17% of the population.
There is no way in hell that the basic structure of the Constitution is going to change short of a new Constitutional Convention, and that would IMO be the shortest possible path to actual civil war in this country. So we’re stuck with it.
But when dudes like McConnell, who personally represents zero-point-seven percent of the population, and whose cohort in the Senate represent a minority of the population as a whole, uses his position of intra-Senate leadership to force circumstances that most of country DO NOT WANT, it strains the ties that bind to the breaking point.
Marty seems happy with his choices. No need to try to change his mind.
You are correct.
And the second paragraph of your 11:29 captures my sentiments precisely.
There’s civility, and then there’s re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We’d all like to think that things aren’t actually going straight to hell, but that thought might be a luxury.
The difference is 3m.
I.e., Trump lost the popular vote. More people wanted somebody else. And yet, there he is.
Second time in 20 years. Keep digging that hole.
Next topic.
The Senate was designed for just the numbers you’re describing
Let’s talk about the Senate.
I’m not sure it’s accurate to say the Senate – and specifically the equal representation per state thing – was “designed”, at all. It surely was not the only option on the table, or even the option seen as most desirable. It was a compromise, just like the “3/5 of a person” thing. It was the price of getting states like Delaware to sign on the bottom line.
It was also modeled on the House of Lords, and was intended among other things to safeguard the interests of people of property against those of the population at large.
As far as numbers, the difference in size between the largest state at the time and the smallest was about 10 or 11 to one. Now it’s 70 to one.
It is theoretically possible for a majority in the Senate to represent 17% of the population.
There is no way in hell that the basic structure of the Constitution is going to change short of a new Constitutional Convention, and that would IMO be the shortest possible path to actual civil war in this country. So we’re stuck with it.
But when dudes like McConnell, who personally represents zero-point-seven percent of the population, and whose cohort in the Senate represent a minority of the population as a whole, uses his position of intra-Senate leadership to force circumstances that most of country DO NOT WANT, it strains the ties that bind to the breaking point.
Marty seems happy with his choices. No need to try to change his mind.
You are correct.
And the second paragraph of your 11:29 captures my sentiments precisely.
There’s civility, and then there’s re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We’d all like to think that things aren’t actually going straight to hell, but that thought might be a luxury.
and was intended among other things to safeguard the interests of people of property against those of the population at large.
So it is working exactly as designed, then.
and was intended among other things to safeguard the interests of people of property against those of the population at large.
So it is working exactly as designed, then.
On the utter lack of principle of Lindsay Graham:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/lindsay-grahams-supports-trump-avoid-2020-primary/572566/
On the utter lack of principle of Lindsay Graham:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/lindsay-grahams-supports-trump-avoid-2020-primary/572566/
Monetizing fascism:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/aclu-trump-admin-limit-protester-rights
Johnny’s in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I’m on the pavement
Thinking about the government
Don’t follow leaders, watch the parkin’ meters
Monetizing fascism:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/aclu-trump-admin-limit-protester-rights
Johnny’s in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I’m on the pavement
Thinking about the government
Don’t follow leaders, watch the parkin’ meters
“Just 10 years ago the Dems had a wave, and were thrown out.”
By the GOP selling a bundle of lies like “death panels” to idiots who wanted the government to stay out of their Medicare.
You must be so proud.
“Just 10 years ago the Dems had a wave, and were thrown out.”
By the GOP selling a bundle of lies like “death panels” to idiots who wanted the government to stay out of their Medicare.
You must be so proud.
Very smooth. A purring, slithering reptile, that operative.
“My boss is calling for civility.” (“And my husband has the dic pics to prove it.”)
A line for the history books.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conway-clinton-dangerous-rhetoric-trump-civility
The firing squads that will execute this woman and her entire traitorous cabal will be solemn, full dress affairs, all of the rule of law p’s and q’s observed, the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted.
The kids rotting in the detention centers will be accorded priority seating. If Hillary so much as lets out a self-satisfied cackle, I’ll remove her myself from the proceedings, because I am all about civility to those experiencing their final moments.
Very smooth. A purring, slithering reptile, that operative.
“My boss is calling for civility.” (“And my husband has the dic pics to prove it.”)
A line for the history books.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conway-clinton-dangerous-rhetoric-trump-civility
The firing squads that will execute this woman and her entire traitorous cabal will be solemn, full dress affairs, all of the rule of law p’s and q’s observed, the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted.
The kids rotting in the detention centers will be accorded priority seating. If Hillary so much as lets out a self-satisfied cackle, I’ll remove her myself from the proceedings, because I am all about civility to those experiencing their final moments.
Dems can scream until they are blue in the face that they are doing something not because it is ruthless, but because it is good policy, but it will be portrayed as ruthlessness.
Then I would say it’s about time we took up the moniker. Politically speaking, we should want to slit every GOPPER throat and watch the blood run in the gutters.
The times call for cold calculating political anger.
Dems can scream until they are blue in the face that they are doing something not because it is ruthless, but because it is good policy, but it will be portrayed as ruthlessness.
Then I would say it’s about time we took up the moniker. Politically speaking, we should want to slit every GOPPER throat and watch the blood run in the gutters.
The times call for cold calculating political anger.
For godawful snobbishness, it is hard to beat rural Americans. It is part of the culture to declare themselves better in everyway than the rest of America. WHile demanding tax funded services for themselves of course, and demanding tax cuts for themselves and whining about how the people they put down and sneer at have the nerve to think that they might matter too.
For godawful snobbishness, it is hard to beat rural Americans. It is part of the culture to declare themselves better in everyway than the rest of America. WHile demanding tax funded services for themselves of course, and demanding tax cuts for themselves and whining about how the people they put down and sneer at have the nerve to think that they might matter too.
The Democrats don’t control the house largely due to gerrymandering.
In defense of any president elected but lost the popular vote, that isn’t the rules of the game. If the popular vote decided, they likely would have run different campaigns, invested in ads in states they would lose but close the gap, etc.
Doesn’t seem dispositive to me.
The Democrats don’t control the house largely due to gerrymandering.
In defense of any president elected but lost the popular vote, that isn’t the rules of the game. If the popular vote decided, they likely would have run different campaigns, invested in ads in states they would lose but close the gap, etc.
Doesn’t seem dispositive to me.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/10/10/and-though-its-a-part-of-the-lone-star-state/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/10/10/and-though-its-a-part-of-the-lone-star-state/
@Marty
3m votes out of 130m cast isn’t a landslide.
A 2%+ margin may or may not be a landslide, but it is, as a statistical matter a very large margin. The chance that an electorate that actually favored Trump would have produced that result is small.
It’s a few more votes in the blue states.
WTF does it matter where the votes were cast? This is an amazingly stupid point, and goes to the whole “demeaning” issue. For some bizarre reason, Republicans don’t think that votes in blue states, especially CA and other big ones, don’t really count, or something.
@jrudkis,
In defense of any president elected but lost the popular vote, that isn’t the rules of the game. If the popular vote decided, they likely would have run different campaigns, invested in ads in states they would lose but close the gap, etc.
Doesn’t seem dispositive to me.
See my response to Marty. No, it’s not dispositive, but it’s damn strong evidence. Yes, the set of voters would have changed, but is there a reason to think it would have shifted towards Trump?
Maybe R voters in CA didn’t turn out because they saw carrying the state as hopeless. But than maybe D voters in TX did the same. And maybe majority party voters in those states didn’t turn out because they thought it was a lock.
I don’t think it’s enough to say tactics would have changed, etc. You have to also have some reason to think there would have been a major shift to Trump.
@Marty
3m votes out of 130m cast isn’t a landslide.
A 2%+ margin may or may not be a landslide, but it is, as a statistical matter a very large margin. The chance that an electorate that actually favored Trump would have produced that result is small.
It’s a few more votes in the blue states.
WTF does it matter where the votes were cast? This is an amazingly stupid point, and goes to the whole “demeaning” issue. For some bizarre reason, Republicans don’t think that votes in blue states, especially CA and other big ones, don’t really count, or something.
@jrudkis,
In defense of any president elected but lost the popular vote, that isn’t the rules of the game. If the popular vote decided, they likely would have run different campaigns, invested in ads in states they would lose but close the gap, etc.
Doesn’t seem dispositive to me.
See my response to Marty. No, it’s not dispositive, but it’s damn strong evidence. Yes, the set of voters would have changed, but is there a reason to think it would have shifted towards Trump?
Maybe R voters in CA didn’t turn out because they saw carrying the state as hopeless. But than maybe D voters in TX did the same. And maybe majority party voters in those states didn’t turn out because they thought it was a lock.
I don’t think it’s enough to say tactics would have changed, etc. You have to also have some reason to think there would have been a major shift to Trump.
Monetizing fascism
It’s not a right, it’s a profit center!
If the popular vote decided, they likely would have run different campaigns
And, their opponent would have done likewise.
Politically speaking, we should want to slit every GOPPER throat and watch the blood run in the gutters.
No.
And enough of this language, please.
Monetizing fascism
It’s not a right, it’s a profit center!
If the popular vote decided, they likely would have run different campaigns
And, their opponent would have done likewise.
Politically speaking, we should want to slit every GOPPER throat and watch the blood run in the gutters.
No.
And enough of this language, please.
Emma Goldman famously said (or was reported to say), “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution”.
If I have to kill my neighbors to get it, I don’t want to be part of your revolution. Period.
Emma Goldman famously said (or was reported to say), “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution”.
If I have to kill my neighbors to get it, I don’t want to be part of your revolution. Period.
Byomtov, exactly. Campaigns are not about the popular vote. They are about the electoral one. The popular vote is not a reasonable measure of the contest. It is like saying a football team didn’t win because the other team gained more yards. The goal in football is points, the goal in presidential elections is electoral votes.
Change the goal, and people will play different.
Byomtov, exactly. Campaigns are not about the popular vote. They are about the electoral one. The popular vote is not a reasonable measure of the contest. It is like saying a football team didn’t win because the other team gained more yards. The goal in football is points, the goal in presidential elections is electoral votes.
Change the goal, and people will play different.
“By the GOP selling a bundle of lies like “death panels” to idiots ”
Both sides sell stuff to idiots. I try to avoid calling it out.
“By the GOP selling a bundle of lies like “death panels” to idiots ”
Both sides sell stuff to idiots. I try to avoid calling it out.
More people wanted someone other than Hilary also, goalposts still the same, electoral votes. Not worried about digging a hole, I can hold two independent thoughts at the same time, Trump sucks, some Republican policies are good. Democrats dont like either. I get it.
More people wanted someone other than Hilary also, goalposts still the same, electoral votes. Not worried about digging a hole, I can hold two independent thoughts at the same time, Trump sucks, some Republican policies are good. Democrats dont like either. I get it.
“The chance that an electorate that actually favored Trump would have produced that result is small”
I am not sure I believe this. The two most populous states are so heavily Democratic that there is simply little reason for aRepublican to vote outside local races,which we know drive much lower turnout.
I, nor anyone else, knows the extent of that sense of disenfranchisement, but I believe it is significant. The difference in California alone was over 3M votes.
“The chance that an electorate that actually favored Trump would have produced that result is small”
I am not sure I believe this. The two most populous states are so heavily Democratic that there is simply little reason for aRepublican to vote outside local races,which we know drive much lower turnout.
I, nor anyone else, knows the extent of that sense of disenfranchisement, but I believe it is significant. The difference in California alone was over 3M votes.
Aside from all else, what’s with the constant misspelling of Hillary Clinton’s first name, with only one “l”, common among conservatives here.
Does the second “l” get lost in the translation from Russian, or what?
Is this the Q-Anon spelling, perhaps?
Like the Luntzian “Democrat” Party?
Ya know, after the troubles subside and the dead are still being counted, we’re going to institute spelling bees at gunpoint.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/hillary-clintons-name-misspelled-on-debate-ticket.html
Aside from all else, what’s with the constant misspelling of Hillary Clinton’s first name, with only one “l”, common among conservatives here.
Does the second “l” get lost in the translation from Russian, or what?
Is this the Q-Anon spelling, perhaps?
Like the Luntzian “Democrat” Party?
Ya know, after the troubles subside and the dead are still being counted, we’re going to institute spelling bees at gunpoint.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/hillary-clintons-name-misspelled-on-debate-ticket.html
Sorry about the spelling. I’ll be better.
Sorry about the spelling. I’ll be better.
And maybe majority party voters in those states didn’t turn out because they thought it was a lock.
This. Virtually-certain outcomes suppress votes on both sides, not just on the certain-to-lose side.
And maybe majority party voters in those states didn’t turn out because they thought it was a lock.
This. Virtually-certain outcomes suppress votes on both sides, not just on the certain-to-lose side.
More people wanted someone other than Hilary also
But more people wanted someone other than Trump than wanted someone other than Clinton. Just to be clear.
More people wanted someone other than Hilary also
But more people wanted someone other than Trump than wanted someone other than Clinton. Just to be clear.
Marty,
But, as I pointed out, there are disenfranchised Democrats as well.
(Isn’t this issue a strong reason to abandon the EC?)
I looked at states where one candidate got less than 40% of the vote. Clinton got 8 million votes in states where she got less than 40% of the vote. Trump got 14 million votes in states where got less than 40%.
So those totals would have to go up by 50% to make the popular vote a tie. I don’t find that plausible, and it ignores those who didn’t vote not because they were sure their candidate would lose, but because they were sure the candidate would win.
Looking at the mirror image, Clinton got 13 million votes in states where got 60%+, while Trump got only 7 million in his 60%+ states.
That’s the same 6 million vote margin, only for Clinton.
So to get to a tie, you have to have the percentage of currently disenfranchised voters go up 50 percentage points more than the percentage of highly confident voters.
The chance of that seems small.
Marty,
But, as I pointed out, there are disenfranchised Democrats as well.
(Isn’t this issue a strong reason to abandon the EC?)
I looked at states where one candidate got less than 40% of the vote. Clinton got 8 million votes in states where she got less than 40% of the vote. Trump got 14 million votes in states where got less than 40%.
So those totals would have to go up by 50% to make the popular vote a tie. I don’t find that plausible, and it ignores those who didn’t vote not because they were sure their candidate would lose, but because they were sure the candidate would win.
Looking at the mirror image, Clinton got 13 million votes in states where got 60%+, while Trump got only 7 million in his 60%+ states.
That’s the same 6 million vote margin, only for Clinton.
So to get to a tie, you have to have the percentage of currently disenfranchised voters go up 50 percentage points more than the percentage of highly confident voters.
The chance of that seems small.
Well, FWIW, turnout was lower only in Japan and Switzerland in recent years:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-election-turnout-emmanuel-macron-parliament-france-victory-fn-marine-le-pen-national-front-a7785366.html
(and Switzerland with its regular referenda is something of a special case).
Is that apathy, disillusion, disgust, or voter suppression ?
Well, FWIW, turnout was lower only in Japan and Switzerland in recent years:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-election-turnout-emmanuel-macron-parliament-france-victory-fn-marine-le-pen-national-front-a7785366.html
(and Switzerland with its regular referenda is something of a special case).
Is that apathy, disillusion, disgust, or voter suppression ?
The two most populous states are so heavily Democratic that there is simply little reason for aRepublican to vote outside local races,which we know drive much lower turnout.
It should be possible to test this. Look at the primary election. Look at the total number of Republican voters vs the total number of Democratic voters.
Both have equal reason to turn out: their fellow party members are the only ones who can vote in their presidential primary (even if the state overall has the kind of open primary system that California uses). So what is the difference there vs. the difference in the general election?
That might not be proof. But it would be a step forward from straight up speculation.
The two most populous states are so heavily Democratic that there is simply little reason for aRepublican to vote outside local races,which we know drive much lower turnout.
It should be possible to test this. Look at the primary election. Look at the total number of Republican voters vs the total number of Democratic voters.
Both have equal reason to turn out: their fellow party members are the only ones who can vote in their presidential primary (even if the state overall has the kind of open primary system that California uses). So what is the difference there vs. the difference in the general election?
That might not be proof. But it would be a step forward from straight up speculation.
mp, which will be misspelled until * is all that’s left of him, would have fought back against the charge of misspelling Clinton’s name by appointing the kid who finished dead last in last year’s national spelling bee, never even making it out of the first round in his classroom, perhaps by misspelling his own name, the head of the Government Printing Office.
Well, maybe he would have experience passing out towels at the Mar-a-Lago cabana as the second bullet point on his resume.
Mp would ask him in the job interview, “Hey kid, how do you spell ‘woman’?”
The kid: “P-U-S-S-Y?”
Mp: “Hey, Kellyanne, get in here right away, I’ve got a live wire on tap for that position!”
Mp: “So, kid, tell Kellyanne here how you would spell “Blasey Ford”. Go ‘head, don’t hold back, Wisenstein.”
Kid: “E-L-I-T-I-S-T L-Y-I-N-G C-*-N-T”
mp: “Ya know, Kellyanne, I’m going to need a new Chief of Staff soon and I think the kid here is overqualified for the Government Printing Office.”
Kellyanne (removing something, probably gum, from her mouth): “Boss of me, your civility takes my breath away.”
mp, which will be misspelled until * is all that’s left of him, would have fought back against the charge of misspelling Clinton’s name by appointing the kid who finished dead last in last year’s national spelling bee, never even making it out of the first round in his classroom, perhaps by misspelling his own name, the head of the Government Printing Office.
Well, maybe he would have experience passing out towels at the Mar-a-Lago cabana as the second bullet point on his resume.
Mp would ask him in the job interview, “Hey kid, how do you spell ‘woman’?”
The kid: “P-U-S-S-Y?”
Mp: “Hey, Kellyanne, get in here right away, I’ve got a live wire on tap for that position!”
Mp: “So, kid, tell Kellyanne here how you would spell “Blasey Ford”. Go ‘head, don’t hold back, Wisenstein.”
Kid: “E-L-I-T-I-S-T L-Y-I-N-G C-*-N-T”
mp: “Ya know, Kellyanne, I’m going to need a new Chief of Staff soon and I think the kid here is overqualified for the Government Printing Office.”
Kellyanne (removing something, probably gum, from her mouth): “Boss of me, your civility takes my breath away.”
jrudkis: The goal in football is points, the goal in presidential elections is electoral votes.
The reason FOR football is to have some fun and get some exercise. What’s the reason FOR presidential elections?
Okay, I know the reason for pro football, as a spectator sport rather than a children’s game, is to deliver eyeballs to advertisers and give gamblers something to bet on. It serves a purpose and has effects outside of the playing field, just like presidential elections do. It’s important to keep that in mind.
We keep going around this particular mulberry bush mostly to humor Marty so he will hang around and regale us with tales from his home planet, not because anybody doubts what The Rules are. But if we’re going to do sports analogies, consider major league baseball.
As I understand it, there was a time when the game started to bore spectators because pitching came to dominate hitting. The Rules, within the game, do not require lots of runs to win; they only require one more run than the other side. Within the game, that’s perfectly fine. No need to add a designated hitter rule — unless you worry that fans will turn to other spectacles for entertainment.
“Politics ain’t hopscotch”, they say. Neither is it football, or baseball, or chess. It’s not a game where observance of arbitrary rules, by the players, is the only purpose of the exercise. It’s civil war by other means. And civil wars can only be played by The Rules for so long.
–TP
jrudkis: The goal in football is points, the goal in presidential elections is electoral votes.
The reason FOR football is to have some fun and get some exercise. What’s the reason FOR presidential elections?
Okay, I know the reason for pro football, as a spectator sport rather than a children’s game, is to deliver eyeballs to advertisers and give gamblers something to bet on. It serves a purpose and has effects outside of the playing field, just like presidential elections do. It’s important to keep that in mind.
We keep going around this particular mulberry bush mostly to humor Marty so he will hang around and regale us with tales from his home planet, not because anybody doubts what The Rules are. But if we’re going to do sports analogies, consider major league baseball.
As I understand it, there was a time when the game started to bore spectators because pitching came to dominate hitting. The Rules, within the game, do not require lots of runs to win; they only require one more run than the other side. Within the game, that’s perfectly fine. No need to add a designated hitter rule — unless you worry that fans will turn to other spectacles for entertainment.
“Politics ain’t hopscotch”, they say. Neither is it football, or baseball, or chess. It’s not a game where observance of arbitrary rules, by the players, is the only purpose of the exercise. It’s civil war by other means. And civil wars can only be played by The Rules for so long.
–TP
Posts of mine in preparation include “A Brief History of the Pants Option”, “Quit Spitting at That Fly In My Soup”, and “Flip That Metaphor, Republicans!”.
Bet y’all can’t wait.
Posts of mine in preparation include “A Brief History of the Pants Option”, “Quit Spitting at That Fly In My Soup”, and “Flip That Metaphor, Republicans!”.
Bet y’all can’t wait.
The popular vote is not a reasonable measure of the contest.
It’s not just about the contest.
The (R)’s represent a large minority of the country. But it is a minority.
Were they interested in responsible governance, rather than just winning and ruling, they would not proceed by grabbing as much as they possibly can while the grabbing is good.
Because that pisses people off, and undermines the popular sense of the legitimacy of the government.
Because, according to our lights, at least in principle, the legitimacy of the government depends on the consent of the governed.
I’m leaving aside the question of the actual substance of (R) policies, which in my opinion suck, thoroughly and consistently.
As things stand right now, (R)’s have to cheat in order to continue to dominate politically. Suppress votes, gerrymander House districts to the point where the courts have to intervene.
Enlist the assistance of foreign governments to win the presidency.
It’s impossible for that kind of crap to continue without breaking things.
Want to live in a broken country? I don’t.
The popular vote is not a reasonable measure of the contest.
It’s not just about the contest.
The (R)’s represent a large minority of the country. But it is a minority.
Were they interested in responsible governance, rather than just winning and ruling, they would not proceed by grabbing as much as they possibly can while the grabbing is good.
Because that pisses people off, and undermines the popular sense of the legitimacy of the government.
Because, according to our lights, at least in principle, the legitimacy of the government depends on the consent of the governed.
I’m leaving aside the question of the actual substance of (R) policies, which in my opinion suck, thoroughly and consistently.
As things stand right now, (R)’s have to cheat in order to continue to dominate politically. Suppress votes, gerrymander House districts to the point where the courts have to intervene.
Enlist the assistance of foreign governments to win the presidency.
It’s impossible for that kind of crap to continue without breaking things.
Want to live in a broken country? I don’t.
“Both sides sell stuff to idiots. I try to avoid calling it out”
Sure, because doing so would mostly be “calling out” your guys as lying liars who lie.
“Both sides sell stuff to idiots. I try to avoid calling it out”
Sure, because doing so would mostly be “calling out” your guys as lying liars who lie.
Were they interested in responsible governance, rather than just winning and ruling, they would not proceed by grabbing as much as they possibly can while the grabbing is good.
Time was when both parties, when in power, would try out a few of their pet ideas. See which ones worked . . . and by working won them more votes. But it appears, based on their actions, that Republicans don’t really think they have ideas that will win votes. Certainly the big tax cut, which is their one big accomplishment in this session of Congress, is so unpopular that their Congressional candidates never mention it.
Gotta have actual ideas that will, or at least that you believe will, benefit a majority of voters. Otherwise you have to run on fear and tribalism. And grab what you can before the demographic trends leave even that inadequate.
Were they interested in responsible governance, rather than just winning and ruling, they would not proceed by grabbing as much as they possibly can while the grabbing is good.
Time was when both parties, when in power, would try out a few of their pet ideas. See which ones worked . . . and by working won them more votes. But it appears, based on their actions, that Republicans don’t really think they have ideas that will win votes. Certainly the big tax cut, which is their one big accomplishment in this session of Congress, is so unpopular that their Congressional candidates never mention it.
Gotta have actual ideas that will, or at least that you believe will, benefit a majority of voters. Otherwise you have to run on fear and tribalism. And grab what you can before the demographic trends leave even that inadequate.
Tony P,
The stakes are higher, but elections are still contests that require rules. Trump won by those rules. Bush v Gore is a much better argument that the popular vote matters given the contested electoral vote.
As I recall in 2000, the expectation before the vote was that Gore would win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote. The opposite happened, but democrats were ready to accept and argue the legitimacy of Gore’s win.
I don’t know how you have elections where the measure of winning is not understood beforehand.
Tony P,
The stakes are higher, but elections are still contests that require rules. Trump won by those rules. Bush v Gore is a much better argument that the popular vote matters given the contested electoral vote.
As I recall in 2000, the expectation before the vote was that Gore would win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote. The opposite happened, but democrats were ready to accept and argue the legitimacy of Gore’s win.
I don’t know how you have elections where the measure of winning is not understood beforehand.
If I have to kill my neighbors to get it, I don’t want to be part of your revolution. Period.
I was speaking metaphorically, but apologize for the misunderstanding.
The time for Democrats ‘playing nice’ has to come to an end.
If I have to kill my neighbors to get it, I don’t want to be part of your revolution. Period.
I was speaking metaphorically, but apologize for the misunderstanding.
The time for Democrats ‘playing nice’ has to come to an end.
The two most populous states are so heavily Democratic…
#2 Texas will be surprised to learn this. Based on current estimates, #3 Florida also. New York has slipped to fourth place on the list of states by population.
The two most populous states are so heavily Democratic…
#2 Texas will be surprised to learn this. Based on current estimates, #3 Florida also. New York has slipped to fourth place on the list of states by population.
As I recall in 2000, the expectation before the vote was that Gore would win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote. The opposite happened, but democrats were ready to accept and argue the legitimacy of Gore’s win.
That’s not exactly how I remember it.
As I see it, a lawless Supreme Court intervened, tossed out the rules, and gave the presidency to their favored candidate.
As I recall in 2000, the expectation before the vote was that Gore would win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote. The opposite happened, but democrats were ready to accept and argue the legitimacy of Gore’s win.
That’s not exactly how I remember it.
As I see it, a lawless Supreme Court intervened, tossed out the rules, and gave the presidency to their favored candidate.
I was speaking metaphorically, but apologize for the misunderstanding.
No worries bobby.
I’ve been living with 15 years of conservatives telling me how much they want to kill people like me. It’s just not a path I want to follow them down.
I feel the need for some kind of standards. 🙂
Thanks for your reply.
The stakes are higher, but elections are still contests that require rules. Trump won by those rules.
I don’t think anybody is contesting that point. Nobody is calling for Trump to resign because he didn’t win the popular vote.
Winning without winning the popular vote should be a highly unusual event. Ideally, it should never happen. Because it calls the legitimacy of the process into question.
More people wanted Person X to be POTUS than wanted Person Y to be. And yet, Person Y is POTUS.
And that has happened twice, now, within 20 years. And in both cases the winner has been a highly divisive and problematic individual.
To say the least.
And in Trump’s case, all of that is exacerbated by the incredibly hostile, antagonistic, and malicious campaign that he waged, and by his remarkably hostile, antagonistic, and malicious performance while in office.
It’s a problem, and I don’t think it’s out of bounds to note the fact that it’s a problem.
I was speaking metaphorically, but apologize for the misunderstanding.
No worries bobby.
I’ve been living with 15 years of conservatives telling me how much they want to kill people like me. It’s just not a path I want to follow them down.
I feel the need for some kind of standards. 🙂
Thanks for your reply.
The stakes are higher, but elections are still contests that require rules. Trump won by those rules.
I don’t think anybody is contesting that point. Nobody is calling for Trump to resign because he didn’t win the popular vote.
Winning without winning the popular vote should be a highly unusual event. Ideally, it should never happen. Because it calls the legitimacy of the process into question.
More people wanted Person X to be POTUS than wanted Person Y to be. And yet, Person Y is POTUS.
And that has happened twice, now, within 20 years. And in both cases the winner has been a highly divisive and problematic individual.
To say the least.
And in Trump’s case, all of that is exacerbated by the incredibly hostile, antagonistic, and malicious campaign that he waged, and by his remarkably hostile, antagonistic, and malicious performance while in office.
It’s a problem, and I don’t think it’s out of bounds to note the fact that it’s a problem.
#2 Texas will be surprised to learn this. Based on current estimates, #3 Florida also
Facts, facts, facts. It’s always facts with you, dude.
What’s your problem?
🙂
#2 Texas will be surprised to learn this. Based on current estimates, #3 Florida also
Facts, facts, facts. It’s always facts with you, dude.
What’s your problem?
🙂
No worries bobby.
What? Me worry?
No worries bobby.
What? Me worry?
Bobbyp,
I think that link shows during various periods GWB was ahead of Gore during the election in the popular vote. Gore was also projected to win the electoral vote. That the projected vote was roughly even at the end does not mean democrats did not plan for the reverse outcome.
My googlefu did not find a link that I am looking for, but I blame deepstate for that.
Bobbyp,
I think that link shows during various periods GWB was ahead of Gore during the election in the popular vote. Gore was also projected to win the electoral vote. That the projected vote was roughly even at the end does not mean democrats did not plan for the reverse outcome.
My googlefu did not find a link that I am looking for, but I blame deepstate for that.
***I don’t think anybody is contesting that point. Nobody is calling for Trump to resign because he didn’t win the popular vote.***
Ok. I read that as saying he is not a legitimate president because he lost the popular vote. If I read into it, I apologize.
I think he is illegitimate because I believe he colluded with Russia illegally to win the electoral vote, but I don’t think the popular vote impacts that at all.
***I don’t think anybody is contesting that point. Nobody is calling for Trump to resign because he didn’t win the popular vote.***
Ok. I read that as saying he is not a legitimate president because he lost the popular vote. If I read into it, I apologize.
I think he is illegitimate because I believe he colluded with Russia illegally to win the electoral vote, but I don’t think the popular vote impacts that at all.
Jrudkis,
I agree that elections need rules. My point is that we hold elections (in preference to other forms of combat) to determine the “Will of the People”. How many Republican presidents in a row need to be elected while losing the popular vote before We the People decide that The Rules are not serving our will?
You may remember that back in 2002 there was an interesting Senate race in New Jersey. Late in the campaign, the scandal-plagued Democratic incumbent Bob Torricelli withdrew from the race. Republicans insisted that The Rules required he remain on the ballot against their boy Doug Forrester. They may have had a good case; I don’t know. But the Democrats did manage to replace “The Torch” with Frank Lautenberg. And The People of New Jersey turned out to prefer Lautenberg over Forrester.
The GOP’s position was that Forrester, who only a minority wanted, was entitled to run against Torricelli, who nobody wanted. The Rules should prevail over The Will of the People, in other words. A hardy perennial notion.
Somebody once calculated that in theory, and strictly by The Rules, a mere 11 individual voters can elect a POTUS. (One voter in each of CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, and NJ.) Never gonna happen, but The Rules as presently constructed theoretically allow it. Let’s hope Putin doesn’t manage to exploit that little quirk.
–TP
Jrudkis,
I agree that elections need rules. My point is that we hold elections (in preference to other forms of combat) to determine the “Will of the People”. How many Republican presidents in a row need to be elected while losing the popular vote before We the People decide that The Rules are not serving our will?
You may remember that back in 2002 there was an interesting Senate race in New Jersey. Late in the campaign, the scandal-plagued Democratic incumbent Bob Torricelli withdrew from the race. Republicans insisted that The Rules required he remain on the ballot against their boy Doug Forrester. They may have had a good case; I don’t know. But the Democrats did manage to replace “The Torch” with Frank Lautenberg. And The People of New Jersey turned out to prefer Lautenberg over Forrester.
The GOP’s position was that Forrester, who only a minority wanted, was entitled to run against Torricelli, who nobody wanted. The Rules should prevail over The Will of the People, in other words. A hardy perennial notion.
Somebody once calculated that in theory, and strictly by The Rules, a mere 11 individual voters can elect a POTUS. (One voter in each of CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, and NJ.) Never gonna happen, but The Rules as presently constructed theoretically allow it. Let’s hope Putin doesn’t manage to exploit that little quirk.
–TP
Facts, facts, facts. It’s always facts with you, dude… What’s your problem?
Let’s see… Originally trained as an applied mathematician and real-time programmer: you either get the right answer within the allotted time or you don’t. A pseudo-academic by inclination: if you’re going to get facts wrong, don’t get the obvious ones wrong. Three years on state legislative budget staff, where “I don’t know, Senator, I’ll have to get back to you” is acceptable but getting the facts wrong isn’t.
Or maybe just a character flaw :^)
Facts, facts, facts. It’s always facts with you, dude… What’s your problem?
Let’s see… Originally trained as an applied mathematician and real-time programmer: you either get the right answer within the allotted time or you don’t. A pseudo-academic by inclination: if you’re going to get facts wrong, don’t get the obvious ones wrong. Three years on state legislative budget staff, where “I don’t know, Senator, I’ll have to get back to you” is acceptable but getting the facts wrong isn’t.
Or maybe just a character flaw :^)
Tony P,
I remember the torch election, and was a Republican then. I disliked Lautenberg the first time he was senator, so very much disliked him the second time. Anyone who carries a gun for a living still signs a Lautenberg amendment form annually affirming they have no disqualifying misdemeanors to keep their job.
Had Lautenberg been the candidate the whole time, Forrester would have campaigned against him, and be prepared for him.
Lautenberg could walk in with torricelli’s information and damage inflicted on Forrester, while the public only heard a familiar name.
Maybe Lautenberg would have won anyway, but it is definitely a goalposts move, that was not fair to the electorate.
The whole ‘fair and free election thing’ was missing from that vote.
Tony P,
I remember the torch election, and was a Republican then. I disliked Lautenberg the first time he was senator, so very much disliked him the second time. Anyone who carries a gun for a living still signs a Lautenberg amendment form annually affirming they have no disqualifying misdemeanors to keep their job.
Had Lautenberg been the candidate the whole time, Forrester would have campaigned against him, and be prepared for him.
Lautenberg could walk in with torricelli’s information and damage inflicted on Forrester, while the public only heard a familiar name.
Maybe Lautenberg would have won anyway, but it is definitely a goalposts move, that was not fair to the electorate.
The whole ‘fair and free election thing’ was missing from that vote.
That the projected vote was roughly even at the end does not mean democrats did not plan for the reverse outcome.
Well, it’s only the Gallup poll, but it indicates voter preference swinging quite a bit, with Bush mostly ahead thru October. I take this as a proxy for “most people” thinking he would win the popular vote ….don’t really know if that would imply he would then lose the electoral vote.
As to the Dems “being prepared” or not for the reverse, I would simply point out that the Bush legal team did a lot better job for their client than Gore’s legal team. For what it’s worth.
That the projected vote was roughly even at the end does not mean democrats did not plan for the reverse outcome.
Well, it’s only the Gallup poll, but it indicates voter preference swinging quite a bit, with Bush mostly ahead thru October. I take this as a proxy for “most people” thinking he would win the popular vote ….don’t really know if that would imply he would then lose the electoral vote.
As to the Dems “being prepared” or not for the reverse, I would simply point out that the Bush legal team did a lot better job for their client than Gore’s legal team. For what it’s worth.
Bobbyp,
I agree. At the time I was outraged Gore cherrypicked districts to recount, instead of going statewide. I didn’t understand why GWB didn’t immediately demand statewide.
I guess he was better served by his team.
Bobbyp,
I agree. At the time I was outraged Gore cherrypicked districts to recount, instead of going statewide. I didn’t understand why GWB didn’t immediately demand statewide.
I guess he was better served by his team.
bobbyp, your Slate link about the “feminization” of the Dems started out depressing me so much I couldn’t finish it (and may therefore have missed much that was important). But I was personally uneasy about Blasey Ford’s submissive, girlish demeanor, while absolutely seeing that it was necessary, although in the event clearly not sufficient. I’m still very very upset about the outcome, let alone what seems to be a common perception among white women that this was either a false accusation or a case of mistaken identity. As the kids say: I can’t even.
bobbyp, your Slate link about the “feminization” of the Dems started out depressing me so much I couldn’t finish it (and may therefore have missed much that was important). But I was personally uneasy about Blasey Ford’s submissive, girlish demeanor, while absolutely seeing that it was necessary, although in the event clearly not sufficient. I’m still very very upset about the outcome, let alone what seems to be a common perception among white women that this was either a false accusation or a case of mistaken identity. As the kids say: I can’t even.
The Democrats don’t control the house largely due to gerrymandering.
And vote suppression.
The Democrats don’t control the house largely due to gerrymandering.
And vote suppression.
GFNC,
Perhaps class and/or tribe overshadows gender? I don’t know how any woman could have voted for Trump.
But they did.
And do please finish the article!
Best Regards,
GFNC,
Perhaps class and/or tribe overshadows gender? I don’t know how any woman could have voted for Trump.
But they did.
And do please finish the article!
Best Regards,
At the time I was outraged Gore cherrypicked districts to recount, instead of going statewide. I didn’t understand why GWB didn’t immediately demand statewide.
I agree Gore should have gone statewide immediately.
But there is one other thing that has always puzzled me. IIRC, Gore picked districts where he got a lot of votes. Is that incorrect?
If it is correct, aren’t those exactly the districts he shouldn’t have picked? ISTM that he should pick districts he lost heavily, because those were the one where he had more votes to gain.
If counting errors are independent of the candidate voted for then in any district there will be more errors favoring the district winner than the loser.
Another reason to go statewide.
At the time I was outraged Gore cherrypicked districts to recount, instead of going statewide. I didn’t understand why GWB didn’t immediately demand statewide.
I agree Gore should have gone statewide immediately.
But there is one other thing that has always puzzled me. IIRC, Gore picked districts where he got a lot of votes. Is that incorrect?
If it is correct, aren’t those exactly the districts he shouldn’t have picked? ISTM that he should pick districts he lost heavily, because those were the one where he had more votes to gain.
If counting errors are independent of the candidate voted for then in any district there will be more errors favoring the district winner than the loser.
Another reason to go statewide.
I didn’t understand why GWB didn’t immediately demand statewide.
He didn’t need to. They asked for a suspension of the recount. A lawless Supreme Court said, “Sure, why not? Sounds good to us!”
I didn’t understand why GWB didn’t immediately demand statewide.
He didn’t need to. They asked for a suspension of the recount. A lawless Supreme Court said, “Sure, why not? Sounds good to us!”
Of one thing I am reasonably sure: Had Gore won the elctoral but not the popular vote, he would not have behaved as if The People had given him a mandate to simply ignore everything the other half of the population wants and to unilaterally impose extremist policies on them.
He would have been conciliatory and the ‘liberal’ media would have insisted on that.
Bush/Cheney/Rove made clear from the start that they had no intention of doing that and the same media pretended that they had a steamrolling mandate.
Of one thing I am reasonably sure: Had Gore won the elctoral but not the popular vote, he would not have behaved as if The People had given him a mandate to simply ignore everything the other half of the population wants and to unilaterally impose extremist policies on them.
He would have been conciliatory and the ‘liberal’ media would have insisted on that.
Bush/Cheney/Rove made clear from the start that they had no intention of doing that and the same media pretended that they had a steamrolling mandate.
The Senate and the Electoral College were purposely designed to protect the interests of slaveholders in rural states from the will of the majority in more urban states.
They continue to work as designed.
The Senate and the Electoral College were purposely designed to protect the interests of slaveholders in rural states from the will of the majority in more urban states.
They continue to work as designed.
IIRC, Gore picked districts where he got a lot of votes. Is that incorrect?
IIRC, those were districts in which voting was recorded by “butterfly ballot” with a misleading layout, and in which the first count showed Gore substantially underperforming his polling — for example, heavily-Jewish districts that showed a surprising vote for Patrick Buchanan.
IIRC, Gore picked districts where he got a lot of votes. Is that incorrect?
IIRC, those were districts in which voting was recorded by “butterfly ballot” with a misleading layout, and in which the first count showed Gore substantially underperforming his polling — for example, heavily-Jewish districts that showed a surprising vote for Patrick Buchanan.
Bobbyp, I agree any USSC decision that begins with ‘dont quote us’ is crap, and even as a GWB guy thought so. But that does not excuse Gore from his choice to cherry pick where he thought he had the best chance (apparently misguided as byomtov points out). And it felt like simple politics, not an effort to find out what the Florida voters wanted. Still does, so to the extent the USSC arbitrarily stopped a targeted political recount, I can understand why there is little sustained outrage from most.
Bobbyp, I agree any USSC decision that begins with ‘dont quote us’ is crap, and even as a GWB guy thought so. But that does not excuse Gore from his choice to cherry pick where he thought he had the best chance (apparently misguided as byomtov points out). And it felt like simple politics, not an effort to find out what the Florida voters wanted. Still does, so to the extent the USSC arbitrarily stopped a targeted political recount, I can understand why there is little sustained outrage from most.
So we’re stuck with it.
No, russell, you could move to Alaska! Your vote would the be worth, what, four times as much? 🙂
So we’re stuck with it.
No, russell, you could move to Alaska! Your vote would the be worth, what, four times as much? 🙂
Or maybe just a character flaw
LOL.
No worries Michael, it was just a joke.
No, russell, you could move to Alaska!
TOO DARK!! Half the time, anyway.
If I’m gonna go that far north, I’m going to Quebec or maybe Toronto.
🙂
Or maybe just a character flaw
LOL.
No worries Michael, it was just a joke.
No, russell, you could move to Alaska!
TOO DARK!! Half the time, anyway.
If I’m gonna go that far north, I’m going to Quebec or maybe Toronto.
🙂
Since it is an open thread, I want to post a safety warning to all. I am currently sitting in a hotel, enjoying the discussion, and had to refresh my beverage. While doing so I overheard someone who was ‘wrong.’ I immediately started to plan my refutation when I realised I had no reasonable basis to explain his wrongness. But just barely.
So if you drink and obwi, please do so responsibly, Ideally with a wing man.
Since it is an open thread, I want to post a safety warning to all. I am currently sitting in a hotel, enjoying the discussion, and had to refresh my beverage. While doing so I overheard someone who was ‘wrong.’ I immediately started to plan my refutation when I realised I had no reasonable basis to explain his wrongness. But just barely.
So if you drink and obwi, please do so responsibly, Ideally with a wing man.
Still does
I’m with you. I guess there were good reasons (see Joel above), but the optics were dreadful. He should have asked for a statewide recount.
As for B vs. G….well, a lot of the pain we Dems currently suffer was a direct result of that political heist, for theft it was.
Still does
I’m with you. I guess there were good reasons (see Joel above), but the optics were dreadful. He should have asked for a statewide recount.
As for B vs. G….well, a lot of the pain we Dems currently suffer was a direct result of that political heist, for theft it was.
The 2000 recount counties targeted were largely chosen because of large Democratic population AND a significant number of undervotes – fewer total votes for president compared to the total ballots cast. So for example Leon County, where Tallahassee is located, though a strong Democratic county, was not a target for a manual recount. The county had an extremely competent supervisor of elections, and used optical scan ballots with which the voting and tallying are extremely accurate. So why push for a recount where you trust the results?
The 2000 recount counties targeted were largely chosen because of large Democratic population AND a significant number of undervotes – fewer total votes for president compared to the total ballots cast. So for example Leon County, where Tallahassee is located, though a strong Democratic county, was not a target for a manual recount. The county had an extremely competent supervisor of elections, and used optical scan ballots with which the voting and tallying are extremely accurate. So why push for a recount where you trust the results?
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/party-lincoln-party-calhoun-endless-series-2
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/party-lincoln-party-calhoun-endless-series-2
cheating is the only way they can keep winning.
cheating is the only way they can keep winning.
Hartmut,
Had Gore won the 2000 election, he might well have gone after bin Laden for the USS Cole bombing and thus possibly forestalled the 9/11 catastrophe. That would have cost him dearly, of course: the likes of Marty would have caterwauled about “wagging the dog” and there would not have been a STFU answer. And of course if bin Laden had still managed to pull off 9/11 the likes of Marty would have exploded with accusations that Gore provoked him to do it. The Republicans’ fury, amplified by the Right Wing Noise Machine and abetted by the Lame Stream Media, might have been so hot as to force Gore to invade Iraq just to shut them up.
And all because “reasonable Republican” Sandra Day O’Connor played Susan Collins in a previous incarnation.
It is of course possible that Dick and Dubya would have won anyway, based on what the 537 most marginal Florida voters had for breakfast on election day.
Oh well, c’est la vie. For the survivors, I mean.
–TP
Hartmut,
Had Gore won the 2000 election, he might well have gone after bin Laden for the USS Cole bombing and thus possibly forestalled the 9/11 catastrophe. That would have cost him dearly, of course: the likes of Marty would have caterwauled about “wagging the dog” and there would not have been a STFU answer. And of course if bin Laden had still managed to pull off 9/11 the likes of Marty would have exploded with accusations that Gore provoked him to do it. The Republicans’ fury, amplified by the Right Wing Noise Machine and abetted by the Lame Stream Media, might have been so hot as to force Gore to invade Iraq just to shut them up.
And all because “reasonable Republican” Sandra Day O’Connor played Susan Collins in a previous incarnation.
It is of course possible that Dick and Dubya would have won anyway, based on what the 537 most marginal Florida voters had for breakfast on election day.
Oh well, c’est la vie. For the survivors, I mean.
–TP
In regards to the zimmerman link about the feminization of the dems
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gop-apologizes-snatching-mic-opponent
and
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/the-mommy-party
Don’t want to make promises I can’t keep, but this may occasion a front page post on the point.
In regards to the zimmerman link about the feminization of the dems
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gop-apologizes-snatching-mic-opponent
and
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/the-mommy-party
Don’t want to make promises I can’t keep, but this may occasion a front page post on the point.
FWIW, I acknowledge the popular vote argument. It’s not lost on most people.
But in my simple political math, (campaigning for the electoral college) + ((Trump + Johnson+ McMullin votes) – (Clinton + Stein votes)) > Hillary’s popular vote total. Add in Jrudkis’ point about running for the electoral college and well, advantage “conservatives”. By almost a million votes and probably more given campaign strategy.
IMHO, this race isn’t the best race to argue about the popular vote vs. the electoral college.
FWIW, I acknowledge the popular vote argument. It’s not lost on most people.
But in my simple political math, (campaigning for the electoral college) + ((Trump + Johnson+ McMullin votes) – (Clinton + Stein votes)) > Hillary’s popular vote total. Add in Jrudkis’ point about running for the electoral college and well, advantage “conservatives”. By almost a million votes and probably more given campaign strategy.
IMHO, this race isn’t the best race to argue about the popular vote vs. the electoral college.
advantage “conservatives”.
Does that mean “conservatives” love incarcerating babies? What a country, then. [Can’t remember, but assume you’re in the embryo brigade.]
advantage “conservatives”.
Does that mean “conservatives” love incarcerating babies? What a country, then. [Can’t remember, but assume you’re in the embryo brigade.]
advantage “conservatives”.
Oops. Forgot the itals last time. Can’t wait to reread history, and see “advantage Nazis.” You must be extremely proud!
advantage “conservatives”.
Oops. Forgot the itals last time. Can’t wait to reread history, and see “advantage Nazis.” You must be extremely proud!
bc,
Without arguing your math, I just want to note your voluntary admission that He, Trump is a “conservative”.
–TP
bc,
Without arguing your math, I just want to note your voluntary admission that He, Trump is a “conservative”.
–TP
russell: cheating is the only way they can keep winning.
Actually wrong on two counts.
First, they could keep winning by the simple expedient of doing what their own 2008 post mortem suggested: advocate for things that more of the population likes, and try to become a bigger tent party.
Second, even cheating is producing diminishing returns. Which is to say, it isn’t going to allow them to keep winning all that much longer.
But agreed, if they refuse to change, it’s their only option at the moment.
russell: cheating is the only way they can keep winning.
Actually wrong on two counts.
First, they could keep winning by the simple expedient of doing what their own 2008 post mortem suggested: advocate for things that more of the population likes, and try to become a bigger tent party.
Second, even cheating is producing diminishing returns. Which is to say, it isn’t going to allow them to keep winning all that much longer.
But agreed, if they refuse to change, it’s their only option at the moment.
Sapient,
Isn’t it true that children in immigration court were not provided attorneys for years before Trump? I don’t think they ever have had them provided.
That is my understanding. I agree that is outrageous, but not new.
Trump has made worse what was already awful, but pinning the lack of representation on this administration or republicans generally is not accurate imho.
Sapient,
Isn’t it true that children in immigration court were not provided attorneys for years before Trump? I don’t think they ever have had them provided.
That is my understanding. I agree that is outrageous, but not new.
Trump has made worse what was already awful, but pinning the lack of representation on this administration or republicans generally is not accurate imho.
Trump has made worse what was already awful, but pinning the lack of representation on this administration or republicans generally is not accurate imho.
The Obama administration was faced with a huge influx of unaccompanied minors whose parents sent them north because the parents were desperate to get them out of harm’s way (because the countries of origin are basically failed states where gang violence is the law of the land).
No, there’s no “guarantee” of a lawyer in immigration cases. The unaccompanied minor situation, as faced by the Obama administration was difficult. However, they were put in a pipeline for Special Juvenile Immigration Status, some of whom I represented in juvenile court in my jurisdiction.
Now, kids have been separated from their parents unnecessarily. Families who are seeking asylum are outright rejected are put in indefinite detention.
The US has dramatically reduced the number of asylum seekers it will accept in the face of dramatic numbers of people who are seeking asylum.
The government is building new tent cities (private prison corporations being paid for this) to house tons more people.
I’m not in the mood to provide links. Look it up or be skeptical – who cares anymore.
Trump has made worse what was already awful, but pinning the lack of representation on this administration or republicans generally is not accurate imho.
The Obama administration was faced with a huge influx of unaccompanied minors whose parents sent them north because the parents were desperate to get them out of harm’s way (because the countries of origin are basically failed states where gang violence is the law of the land).
No, there’s no “guarantee” of a lawyer in immigration cases. The unaccompanied minor situation, as faced by the Obama administration was difficult. However, they were put in a pipeline for Special Juvenile Immigration Status, some of whom I represented in juvenile court in my jurisdiction.
Now, kids have been separated from their parents unnecessarily. Families who are seeking asylum are outright rejected are put in indefinite detention.
The US has dramatically reduced the number of asylum seekers it will accept in the face of dramatic numbers of people who are seeking asylum.
The government is building new tent cities (private prison corporations being paid for this) to house tons more people.
I’m not in the mood to provide links. Look it up or be skeptical – who cares anymore.
OK bobbyp, since you asked so nicely, I finished it. It’s a good article, but I’m still fucking depressed.
By the way, our recent fracas with McKinney was a perfect illustration of this phenomenon: the left is supposed not to bother ideological opponents like SHS in public restaurants, while RWNJs regularly insult and harass people speaking Spanish, shoot black people and insult LGBT people. To misquote the great Nina Simone: USA goddam!
OK bobbyp, since you asked so nicely, I finished it. It’s a good article, but I’m still fucking depressed.
By the way, our recent fracas with McKinney was a perfect illustration of this phenomenon: the left is supposed not to bother ideological opponents like SHS in public restaurants, while RWNJs regularly insult and harass people speaking Spanish, shoot black people and insult LGBT people. To misquote the great Nina Simone: USA goddam!
sapient, I don’t know exactly what I did to offend you, but I’m pretty sure I’m guilty simply for being conservative in your book. Godwin and all.
Your cartoonish version of conservatives (i.e. Embryo Brigade) is not something I recognize in myself or those I associate with. And, for the record, I’m not in favor of separating young children from parents. Read minds much?
sapient, I don’t know exactly what I did to offend you, but I’m pretty sure I’m guilty simply for being conservative in your book. Godwin and all.
Your cartoonish version of conservatives (i.e. Embryo Brigade) is not something I recognize in myself or those I associate with. And, for the record, I’m not in favor of separating young children from parents. Read minds much?
they were put in a pipeline for Special Juvenile Immigration Status, some of whom I represented in juvenile court in my jurisdiction.
I notice that I didn’t elaborate on this much. Special Juvenile Immigration Status allows kids to seek citizenship status over time. It’s a hard road, but a road to citizenship.
Unless, of course, a la McKinney and friends, it’s okay to hunt for reasons to take away people’s citizenship.
Look, I have to try hard to be nice here. Sometimes it’s pretty difficult.
they were put in a pipeline for Special Juvenile Immigration Status, some of whom I represented in juvenile court in my jurisdiction.
I notice that I didn’t elaborate on this much. Special Juvenile Immigration Status allows kids to seek citizenship status over time. It’s a hard road, but a road to citizenship.
Unless, of course, a la McKinney and friends, it’s okay to hunt for reasons to take away people’s citizenship.
Look, I have to try hard to be nice here. Sometimes it’s pretty difficult.
TP: Lol, well, as opposed to Hillary, maybe. Not an admission and using terms loosely, hence the “”.
TP: Lol, well, as opposed to Hillary, maybe. Not an admission and using terms loosely, hence the “”.
And, for the record, I’m not in favor of separating young children from parents
What are you doing about it? Are you voting for the people who are perpetuating this? Then you are for it, in my book. Cafeteria conservative? Tax cuts rule? Maybe you should say what you’re doing about human rights, if you believe in them.
And, for the record, I’m not in favor of separating young children from parents
What are you doing about it? Are you voting for the people who are perpetuating this? Then you are for it, in my book. Cafeteria conservative? Tax cuts rule? Maybe you should say what you’re doing about human rights, if you believe in them.
bc,
I don’t speak for sapient, but if I were to use the term “Embryo Brigade” I would be referring to those and only those people who argue that even 1st-trimester abortion is murder. In which case I would not be referring to you, right?
–TP
bc,
I don’t speak for sapient, but if I were to use the term “Embryo Brigade” I would be referring to those and only those people who argue that even 1st-trimester abortion is murder. In which case I would not be referring to you, right?
–TP
B vs. G…. that political heist
The critical active theft came earlier, when Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris, at the direction of Jeb Bush, purged the voter roles of the names of felons … and of any names (such as Clay or Jackson or Brown) that were sorta similar to the names of felons and that seemed like they might be the names of Democratic voters. Over 55,000 people were removed from the voter roles; 80% of those people were black.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
Without this deliberate monkeywrenching, the Florida election would never have been close enough to permit the shenanigans that followed.
PS: fuck Ralph Nader and his ego
B vs. G…. that political heist
The critical active theft came earlier, when Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris, at the direction of Jeb Bush, purged the voter roles of the names of felons … and of any names (such as Clay or Jackson or Brown) that were sorta similar to the names of felons and that seemed like they might be the names of Democratic voters. Over 55,000 people were removed from the voter roles; 80% of those people were black.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
Without this deliberate monkeywrenching, the Florida election would never have been close enough to permit the shenanigans that followed.
PS: fuck Ralph Nader and his ego
I don’t speak for sapient
That’s one definition, TonyP, and bc can speak to that.
I’ll offer another: “Life begins at conception, and at birth: who cares”
I don’t speak for sapient
That’s one definition, TonyP, and bc can speak to that.
I’ll offer another: “Life begins at conception, and at birth: who cares”
bc? Writing a brief? What are you doing about those kids, bc?
I get in trouble for harassing people, so I’ll stop. Hope to hear from bc about bc’s efforts on behalf of kids living in the hottest hell of Texas tents.
bc? Writing a brief? What are you doing about those kids, bc?
I get in trouble for harassing people, so I’ll stop. Hope to hear from bc about bc’s efforts on behalf of kids living in the hottest hell of Texas tents.
bc is a troll. bc disappears until the next question comes up.
bc is a troll. bc disappears until the next question comes up.
sapient, a piece of advice: stop biting hooks. I know it may seem that you are being told to quiet down, but what if you thought of the possibility that bc _wants_ the kind of back and forth you seem eager to give him? Wait until he actually formulates an argument with data is what I suggest. And all I ask.
sapient, a piece of advice: stop biting hooks. I know it may seem that you are being told to quiet down, but what if you thought of the possibility that bc _wants_ the kind of back and forth you seem eager to give him? Wait until he actually formulates an argument with data is what I suggest. And all I ask.
And all I ask.
Good advice. Unfortunately, if I leave for awhile (which I will), I feel I’ll miss the rare response. My guess is (as I think is the technique) that there will be no response until days ahead.
Bye for now. (Again, you’re right, lj. Thanks.)
And all I ask.
Good advice. Unfortunately, if I leave for awhile (which I will), I feel I’ll miss the rare response. My guess is (as I think is the technique) that there will be no response until days ahead.
Bye for now. (Again, you’re right, lj. Thanks.)
But in my simple political math, (campaigning for the electoral college) + ((Trump + Johnson+ McMullin votes) – (Clinton + Stein votes)) > Hillary’s popular vote total. Add in Jrudkis’ point about running for the electoral college and well, advantage “conservatives”. By almost a million votes and probably more given campaign strategy.
Two things.
First, it is not at all clear where votes for McMullin, Stein, and Johnson would have gone in a popular vote election. It is probable that some would have gone as you assume, but certainly not all, maybe not even most. Some would have gone the other way, and some would have stayed where they were.
These were not entirely “free votes,” cast in states that were decisively red or blue. Johnson got over 200,000 votes in FL, for example. I doubt those were Trump or Clinton supporters confident of carrying the state. Johnson got 3.3% nationwide. He got 2.9% in states where both Trump and Clinton got over 45%. (Fun with Excel).
Second, why do you assume that the different campaign strategy called for by a popular vote election would have shifted votes to Trump? Maybe it would have shifted them to Clinton instead.
Coming up with a 3 million vote swing is not easy.
But in my simple political math, (campaigning for the electoral college) + ((Trump + Johnson+ McMullin votes) – (Clinton + Stein votes)) > Hillary’s popular vote total. Add in Jrudkis’ point about running for the electoral college and well, advantage “conservatives”. By almost a million votes and probably more given campaign strategy.
Two things.
First, it is not at all clear where votes for McMullin, Stein, and Johnson would have gone in a popular vote election. It is probable that some would have gone as you assume, but certainly not all, maybe not even most. Some would have gone the other way, and some would have stayed where they were.
These were not entirely “free votes,” cast in states that were decisively red or blue. Johnson got over 200,000 votes in FL, for example. I doubt those were Trump or Clinton supporters confident of carrying the state. Johnson got 3.3% nationwide. He got 2.9% in states where both Trump and Clinton got over 45%. (Fun with Excel).
Second, why do you assume that the different campaign strategy called for by a popular vote election would have shifted votes to Trump? Maybe it would have shifted them to Clinton instead.
Coming up with a 3 million vote swing is not easy.
I feel I’ll miss the rare response
If there is that response, I’m sure it will be burned into the minds of the other commenters minds and will come up again and you can go back to it. Think Haley’s comet…
I feel I’ll miss the rare response
If there is that response, I’m sure it will be burned into the minds of the other commenters minds and will come up again and you can go back to it. Think Haley’s comet…
First, it is not at all clear where votes for McMullin, Stein, and Johnson would have gone in a popular vote election.
In particular, votes for McMullin would, IMHO, have gone for anybody but Trump. Even Clinton.
First, it is not at all clear where votes for McMullin, Stein, and Johnson would have gone in a popular vote election.
In particular, votes for McMullin would, IMHO, have gone for anybody but Trump. Even Clinton.
Just so we are clear, I was very much a Gore partisan when he ran against Clinton in the primaries and would have voted for him as the President. So, while I think the whole stole the election is ridiculous, I would not have objected to a Gore presidency much.
For lying, Obamacare showed the big lie. It accomplished none of the goals, most important coverage for everyone. With 60 votes in the Senate. What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?
Just so we are clear, I was very much a Gore partisan when he ran against Clinton in the primaries and would have voted for him as the President. So, while I think the whole stole the election is ridiculous, I would not have objected to a Gore presidency much.
For lying, Obamacare showed the big lie. It accomplished none of the goals, most important coverage for everyone. With 60 votes in the Senate. What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?
Scoundrels.
I’d like a national standard for voter eligibility.
And whatever we are going to require to meet that standard, it has to be available to everyone. Rich, poor, whatever color you are, college students, whatever.
If you’re a citizen of legal age, you are qualified to vote. Period. If you’re living in your freaking car – which is actually not a small number of people – you still get to vote.
In GA they’re chucking people off the rolls for any difference in how you are identified.
Like, if your last name is hyphenated in some cases, and not in others.
I use my middle name 90% of the time, I’m sure they would find a way to bump me off the list due to the fact that in some records I show up by my first name, in some by my middle, and in some by my full name.
If they don’t cheat they won’t win. So, they cheat.
I’d applaud it if they took wj’s advice and, rather than cheat, decided to do something for the people.
Instead, they cheat.
Scoundrels.
I’d like a national standard for voter eligibility.
And whatever we are going to require to meet that standard, it has to be available to everyone. Rich, poor, whatever color you are, college students, whatever.
If you’re a citizen of legal age, you are qualified to vote. Period. If you’re living in your freaking car – which is actually not a small number of people – you still get to vote.
In GA they’re chucking people off the rolls for any difference in how you are identified.
Like, if your last name is hyphenated in some cases, and not in others.
I use my middle name 90% of the time, I’m sure they would find a way to bump me off the list due to the fact that in some records I show up by my first name, in some by my middle, and in some by my full name.
If they don’t cheat they won’t win. So, they cheat.
I’d applaud it if they took wj’s advice and, rather than cheat, decided to do something for the people.
Instead, they cheat.
jrudkis, up thread somewhat:
“So if you drink and obwi, please do so responsibly, Ideally with a wing man.”
I’m not sure for whom this caution is intended, but when in a Civil War against the internal enemies of America, I like Lincoln’s approach:
“Well, I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”
jrudkis, up thread somewhat:
“So if you drink and obwi, please do so responsibly, Ideally with a wing man.”
I’m not sure for whom this caution is intended, but when in a Civil War against the internal enemies of America, I like Lincoln’s approach:
“Well, I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”
“What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?”
The USA Today is available on the newsstand, online, and at your local library.
“What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?”
The USA Today is available on the newsstand, online, and at your local library.
There were 60 votes for what passed. There were not 60 votes for Medicare for All, or Medicare 55+, or a public option. Adherence to procedural norms (the filibuster) meant that the most conservative of the 60 had veto power over what got passed. If only 51 votes had been needed a more liberal plan could have passed that would have covered more people in a less convoluted way. I will leave it as an exercise for the readers what the response from certain quarters would have been under the scenario of a “bare majority steamrolling through a radical plan”.
There were 60 votes for what passed. There were not 60 votes for Medicare for All, or Medicare 55+, or a public option. Adherence to procedural norms (the filibuster) meant that the most conservative of the 60 had veto power over what got passed. If only 51 votes had been needed a more liberal plan could have passed that would have covered more people in a less convoluted way. I will leave it as an exercise for the readers what the response from certain quarters would have been under the scenario of a “bare majority steamrolling through a radical plan”.
With 60 votes in the Senate. What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?
Because 60 votes is a very high bar, and you have to gather a big coalition to get over it. This gives a great deal of power to that 60th vote, and that vote happened to belong to Joe Lieberman.
The rest is too obvious to bear repeating.
If the Dems had 80 votes in the Senate in 2009 you can bet your ‘effing ass that we’d have single payer today, and Joe L. would have been told to pound sand.
The Medicaid expansion alone has saved tens of thousands of lives. Apparently this is of no importance to you.
With 60 votes in the Senate. What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?
Because 60 votes is a very high bar, and you have to gather a big coalition to get over it. This gives a great deal of power to that 60th vote, and that vote happened to belong to Joe Lieberman.
The rest is too obvious to bear repeating.
If the Dems had 80 votes in the Senate in 2009 you can bet your ‘effing ass that we’d have single payer today, and Joe L. would have been told to pound sand.
The Medicaid expansion alone has saved tens of thousands of lives. Apparently this is of no importance to you.
“What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?”
Sorry, need to amend what I wrote earlier. I said
Want everyone to have insurance? Just trying to undercut Republicans and create death panels.
Given Marty’s input, that should be changed to ‘they just want to take away insurance from hard working Americans who _pay_ for it and give it away to lazy welfare cheats.” Thanks for the correction.
“What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?”
Sorry, need to amend what I wrote earlier. I said
Want everyone to have insurance? Just trying to undercut Republicans and create death panels.
Given Marty’s input, that should be changed to ‘they just want to take away insurance from hard working Americans who _pay_ for it and give it away to lazy welfare cheats.” Thanks for the correction.
By the way, our recent fracas with McKinney was a perfect illustration of this phenomenon
Well, some got off to a left-footed start and MK saw an opening and took advantage by framing it along the lines of a “when did you stop beating your wife” question.
That’s what lawyers are paid to do.
By the way, our recent fracas with McKinney was a perfect illustration of this phenomenon
Well, some got off to a left-footed start and MK saw an opening and took advantage by framing it along the lines of a “when did you stop beating your wife” question.
That’s what lawyers are paid to do.
I wonder who is paying him to do it here…
I wonder who is paying him to do it here…
could be one of those pro bono things….
🙂
could be one of those pro bono things….
🙂
With 60 votes in the Senate. What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?
Nelson from Nebraska and Lieberman from Connecticut. Universal coverage requires throwing much of the private health insurance business under the bus (see, for example, how Switzerland regulates its private insurance companies). Neither of those Senators are going to vote for that. Neither of them was going to vote for even a public option. Period.
More in my field, Manchin isn’t going to vote against coal. Heitkamp isn’t going to vote against oil. No Dem Senator from Pennsylvania is going to vote against natural gas.
Sometime in the next few years the legislative filibuster in the Senate is toast.
With 60 votes in the Senate. What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?
Nelson from Nebraska and Lieberman from Connecticut. Universal coverage requires throwing much of the private health insurance business under the bus (see, for example, how Switzerland regulates its private insurance companies). Neither of those Senators are going to vote for that. Neither of them was going to vote for even a public option. Period.
More in my field, Manchin isn’t going to vote against coal. Heitkamp isn’t going to vote against oil. No Dem Senator from Pennsylvania is going to vote against natural gas.
Sometime in the next few years the legislative filibuster in the Senate is toast.
What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?
Kaiser.
What stupid person believes the Democrats are for insuring everyone?
Kaiser.
My own depressing view of the state of politics comes from Tennessee. I lived in Nashville for many years and still have friends and business connections there.
Now I read that Marsha Blackburn is leading Phil Bredesen in the race to replace Corker in the Senate.
This is completely absurd. On the one hand we have a right-wing nut job with essentially no qualifications. On the other we have a very intelligent, highly competent, candidate who was an extremely successful businessman, who did a fine job as mayor of Nashville, and did the same as Governor of TN, to the extent that he was overwhelmingly re-elected.
There simply is no comparison. In any rational election Bredesen would win 80-20 or more. That Blackburn is leading, or even putting up a fight, tells me that red state voters have simply lost their minds.
My own depressing view of the state of politics comes from Tennessee. I lived in Nashville for many years and still have friends and business connections there.
Now I read that Marsha Blackburn is leading Phil Bredesen in the race to replace Corker in the Senate.
This is completely absurd. On the one hand we have a right-wing nut job with essentially no qualifications. On the other we have a very intelligent, highly competent, candidate who was an extremely successful businessman, who did a fine job as mayor of Nashville, and did the same as Governor of TN, to the extent that he was overwhelmingly re-elected.
There simply is no comparison. In any rational election Bredesen would win 80-20 or more. That Blackburn is leading, or even putting up a fight, tells me that red state voters have simply lost their minds.
have simply lost their minds.
If you assume that what they most want is comptetent, rational government, it’s certainly hard to explain.
On the other hand, if you assume that what they most want is to stick it to the imaginary demonic liberals who live in their heads …
have simply lost their minds.
If you assume that what they most want is comptetent, rational government, it’s certainly hard to explain.
On the other hand, if you assume that what they most want is to stick it to the imaginary demonic liberals who live in their heads …
Democrats are uncompromising zealots until they compromise, at which point they don’t mean what they say.
Democrats are uncompromising zealots until they compromise, at which point they don’t mean what they say.
Michael,
Another option is to provide Meficare for those who cant pay. Insurance companies won’t get them anyway. No single payer necessary adds, if I remember correctly, about 25m to Medicare, saves a it for older people, and leaves the 80% that are employer insured alone.
And with 60 votes they could have paid for it.
Michael,
Another option is to provide Meficare for those who cant pay. Insurance companies won’t get them anyway. No single payer necessary adds, if I remember correctly, about 25m to Medicare, saves a it for older people, and leaves the 80% that are employer insured alone.
And with 60 votes they could have paid for it.
“imaginary demonic liberals”
Who are constantly fighting the imaginary demonic conservatives.
“imaginary demonic liberals”
Who are constantly fighting the imaginary demonic conservatives.
Marty, instead of Russell, maybe you are the one who should trademark these witty comebacks? Or is this yet another case of do as I think you should do, not as what I and my counterparts do?
About your medicare pipe dream, if you would care to check out this link
https://familiesusa.org/product/50-state-look-medicaid-expansion
You’d see that 18 states have not expanded Medicare despite the fact that the federal government is paying for it. The map seems to have a interesting overlap with the states that went for Trump. But I guess that’s just my imagination.
Marty, instead of Russell, maybe you are the one who should trademark these witty comebacks? Or is this yet another case of do as I think you should do, not as what I and my counterparts do?
About your medicare pipe dream, if you would care to check out this link
https://familiesusa.org/product/50-state-look-medicaid-expansion
You’d see that 18 states have not expanded Medicare despite the fact that the federal government is paying for it. The map seems to have a interesting overlap with the states that went for Trump. But I guess that’s just my imagination.
imaginary
You’d see that…
Again, with the facts.
What is it with you people?
imaginary
You’d see that…
Again, with the facts.
What is it with you people?
Well, they havent expanded Medicaid. Medicare is already single payer and not dependent on state expansion,
Well, they havent expanded Medicaid. Medicare is already single payer and not dependent on state expansion,
Let’s you leftists be civil.
Let’s you leftists be civil.
And with 60 votes they could have paid for it.
Well, they did.
Eligibility was expanded. GOP controlled states turned this down because they are in favor of poor people dying before their time.
You are really something to whine about not expanding Medicaid coverage, yet support GOP repeal efforts.
For fuck’s sake. Really?
The GOP health care plan is this: Sucks to be you. That and nothing more. This is simply pure sociopathy.
And with 60 votes they could have paid for it.
Well, they did.
Eligibility was expanded. GOP controlled states turned this down because they are in favor of poor people dying before their time.
You are really something to whine about not expanding Medicaid coverage, yet support GOP repeal efforts.
For fuck’s sake. Really?
The GOP health care plan is this: Sucks to be you. That and nothing more. This is simply pure sociopathy.
TP: re Embryo Brigade: Murder? No.
TP: re Embryo Brigade: Murder? No.
bc: Involuntary 2nd-degree manslaughter, perhaps? Or NOYB, maybe?
–TP
bc: Involuntary 2nd-degree manslaughter, perhaps? Or NOYB, maybe?
–TP
Sapient, I respect your strong belief and taking action to protest even if I don’t agree with your views. Good for you. And I mean that.
But you don’t wait for an answer, assign me into a category and then justify your assignment by more assumptions. I really don’t think you care about my answer.
I went to my son’s soccer game, just so you know. I get back and read this. Troll? Seriously? We are in the comments section of a blog, not a chat room. You honestly expect immediate responses to your rhetorical questions?
At one point you said my failure to answer one question was “unattractive.” I think you really mean my failure to answer questions in a way that pleases you and fits your world view. If it doesn’t fit that, you assign me to your dichotomous hell hole and that’s it. I actually spend time drafting a response to the one question you posed on the wrong thread that I had “overlooked” and put thought and effort into it to boot, but in the meantime you made it clear to me that you really didn’t care to listen so I didn’t post the comment. If you want to hear my answer, let me know. Glad to share (if you remember the question).
And lj, how about a little perspective here? You know I don’t troll. You tell sapient to wait for an “argument with data.” Pray tell, point me to one argument in this thread by sapient where she has posted an argument with data. Sapient’s comments are typically just venting. Something happened in my absence, apparently between you and Marty, and it may have colored your perspective on those to the right of center. Just sayin’.
ObWi to me has always been a place about conversations, but conversations that often were disjointed because people, well, have lives. That’s why I lurked for quite a while. Not enough time. But for a guy that tries to thoughtfully listen and engage as much as I have time, being called a “troll” and having lj feed the real trolling going on here is a bit much.
FWIW, I listen to the conversations. Frex, I read bobbyp’s Jack Balkin link (and more). I find myself better informed of what others think. I am sincere (unless I am lamely trying to be funny).
Having you, sapient, cast me into some sort of “troll conservative” mold is certainly your right. You read so much into what I say it is almost impossible to have an actual conversation. It just makes me miss some of the veterans of old, Hilzoy probably the most. Hilzoy had a way of making one feel welcome at the table while deftly debunking arguments in the way good teachers do, where the student finds their way to the right answer rather than having it shoved down their throats. Or called a troll.
Many of you have some of that same quality, even if it’s accompanied by some snark (and more). It’s why I am here.
Rant over.
Sapient, I respect your strong belief and taking action to protest even if I don’t agree with your views. Good for you. And I mean that.
But you don’t wait for an answer, assign me into a category and then justify your assignment by more assumptions. I really don’t think you care about my answer.
I went to my son’s soccer game, just so you know. I get back and read this. Troll? Seriously? We are in the comments section of a blog, not a chat room. You honestly expect immediate responses to your rhetorical questions?
At one point you said my failure to answer one question was “unattractive.” I think you really mean my failure to answer questions in a way that pleases you and fits your world view. If it doesn’t fit that, you assign me to your dichotomous hell hole and that’s it. I actually spend time drafting a response to the one question you posed on the wrong thread that I had “overlooked” and put thought and effort into it to boot, but in the meantime you made it clear to me that you really didn’t care to listen so I didn’t post the comment. If you want to hear my answer, let me know. Glad to share (if you remember the question).
And lj, how about a little perspective here? You know I don’t troll. You tell sapient to wait for an “argument with data.” Pray tell, point me to one argument in this thread by sapient where she has posted an argument with data. Sapient’s comments are typically just venting. Something happened in my absence, apparently between you and Marty, and it may have colored your perspective on those to the right of center. Just sayin’.
ObWi to me has always been a place about conversations, but conversations that often were disjointed because people, well, have lives. That’s why I lurked for quite a while. Not enough time. But for a guy that tries to thoughtfully listen and engage as much as I have time, being called a “troll” and having lj feed the real trolling going on here is a bit much.
FWIW, I listen to the conversations. Frex, I read bobbyp’s Jack Balkin link (and more). I find myself better informed of what others think. I am sincere (unless I am lamely trying to be funny).
Having you, sapient, cast me into some sort of “troll conservative” mold is certainly your right. You read so much into what I say it is almost impossible to have an actual conversation. It just makes me miss some of the veterans of old, Hilzoy probably the most. Hilzoy had a way of making one feel welcome at the table while deftly debunking arguments in the way good teachers do, where the student finds their way to the right answer rather than having it shoved down their throats. Or called a troll.
Many of you have some of that same quality, even if it’s accompanied by some snark (and more). It’s why I am here.
Rant over.
TP: Not NYOB, but too nuanced a view for typing. But no, no criminal liability.
TP: Not NYOB, but too nuanced a view for typing. But no, no criminal liability.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/campaign-worker-arrested-after-iding-his-candidate-as-democrat
The Beast is upon us.
Shoot it in all its republican heads.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/campaign-worker-arrested-after-iding-his-candidate-as-democrat
The Beast is upon us.
Shoot it in all its republican heads.
The Beast:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23708512/kellyanne-conway-civility-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/
Kill it.
The Beast:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23708512/kellyanne-conway-civility-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/
Kill it.
We’re not serious Americans until we kill the republican Beast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2fwe0rnHak
We’re not serious Americans until we kill the republican Beast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2fwe0rnHak
Well, they havent expanded Medicaid. Medicare is already single payer and not dependent on state expansion
Perhaps you might assume LJ made a simple error and address the substance of his comment.
Well, they havent expanded Medicaid. Medicare is already single payer and not dependent on state expansion
Perhaps you might assume LJ made a simple error and address the substance of his comment.
bc is not a troll.
Conservatives (and libertarians!) who show up here generally get piled on. I appreciate the ones who are willing to put up with it.
We all miss hilzoy.
bc is not a troll.
Conservatives (and libertarians!) who show up here generally get piled on. I appreciate the ones who are willing to put up with it.
We all miss hilzoy.
I thought I did russell. Medicare would not have had that problem
I thought I did russell. Medicare would not have had that problem
Conservatives (and libertarians!) who show up here generally get piled on. I appreciate the ones who are willing to put up with it.
We all miss hilzoy.
Amen.
Conservatives (and libertarians!) who show up here generally get piled on. I appreciate the ones who are willing to put up with it.
We all miss hilzoy.
Amen.
The GOP health care plan is this: Sucks to be you
To be fair, I think the R plan is “the market will take care of it”. It’s the invisible hand that says “sucks to be you”.
Your confusion is, however, understandable.
The GOP health care plan is this: Sucks to be you
To be fair, I think the R plan is “the market will take care of it”. It’s the invisible hand that says “sucks to be you”.
Your confusion is, however, understandable.
The R plan is ‘not our problem’.
The R plan is ‘not our problem’.
I thought I did russell. Medicare would not have had that problem
My bad, apologies.
The fact that Medicare is, as you note, a single payer plan, and is also quite effective, seems worth noticing.
I generally agree that immediately dropping employer provided insurance would be… disruptive. Doing so incrementally over some longer period of time, less so. And, might bring other benefits.
I don’t care either way. People need to go to the doctor. They need to not live in peril of financial ruin if they get sick in some expensive way. Address it any way that works.
Just don’t try to tell me the market will fix it all, like magic. I don’t believe in magic. I sure as hell don’t believe in magic made of money.
There are probably ten or twenty proven, dialed in solutions to this problem. Why we don’t just pick one and go with it escapes me.
Apoarently, we’re not done digging that fucking hole.
I thought I did russell. Medicare would not have had that problem
My bad, apologies.
The fact that Medicare is, as you note, a single payer plan, and is also quite effective, seems worth noticing.
I generally agree that immediately dropping employer provided insurance would be… disruptive. Doing so incrementally over some longer period of time, less so. And, might bring other benefits.
I don’t care either way. People need to go to the doctor. They need to not live in peril of financial ruin if they get sick in some expensive way. Address it any way that works.
Just don’t try to tell me the market will fix it all, like magic. I don’t believe in magic. I sure as hell don’t believe in magic made of money.
There are probably ten or twenty proven, dialed in solutions to this problem. Why we don’t just pick one and go with it escapes me.
Apoarently, we’re not done digging that fucking hole.
Man: Ah. I’d like to have an appendectomy, please.
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have the full appendectomy, or were you thinking of taking a course?
Man: Well, what would be the cost?
Receptionist: Well, we normally charge 10,000 quid, but the insurance allowable amount is 5,000, so we’ll charge you 7,500, insurance will pay 2,500, so you will owe 5,000, but you can submit 2,500 to your HSA when you receive you EOB in seven months and reap a percentage tax savings of an amount that depends on your marginal federal and state tax rates when you file your tax returns in four months.
Man: Well, I think it’s probably best if I start with what you charge me and then see how it goes from there, okay?
Receptionist: Fine. I’ll see who’s free at the moment.
Receptionist: Dr. DeBakey’s free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Dr. Barnard; room 12…………..
Man: Ah. I’d like to have an appendectomy, please.
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have the full appendectomy, or were you thinking of taking a course?
Man: Well, what would be the cost?
Receptionist: Well, we normally charge 10,000 quid, but the insurance allowable amount is 5,000, so we’ll charge you 7,500, insurance will pay 2,500, so you will owe 5,000, but you can submit 2,500 to your HSA when you receive you EOB in seven months and reap a percentage tax savings of an amount that depends on your marginal federal and state tax rates when you file your tax returns in four months.
Man: Well, I think it’s probably best if I start with what you charge me and then see how it goes from there, okay?
Receptionist: Fine. I’ll see who’s free at the moment.
Receptionist: Dr. DeBakey’s free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Dr. Barnard; room 12…………..
balls and strikes.
balls and strikes.
The fact that Medicare is, as you note, a single payer plan, and is also quite effective, seems worth noticing.
My wife and I are transitioning to Medicare this year. I have come to the conclusion that Medicare is not single payer in the sense that most people in the US — and all of the rest of the world — use the term. More than half of Medicare patients use a Medicare Advantage plan — limited network of doctors and hospitals, a wide range of copays and deductibles, etc. Even traditional Medicare has, in effect, a network of doctors — there are many doctors that will not accept it. In my state, there are large rural areas where there are no doctors that will accept Medicare patients.
In my wife’s case, there were three docs that mattered — her GP, her retina specialist, and her arthritis specialist. She had seen the same three for years. None of the three will accept traditional Medicare. Each of the three accepts a single Medicare Advantage plan, but no two of them accept the same Advantage plan. Switching to Medicare has meant new docs all around for her.
The real distinguishing characteristic of single-payer is that docs don’t have a choice. They either accept patients that have insurance, or they operate a concierge service for the wealthy who can pay for care themselves.
(Note: For reasons I won’t go into, we had to start the year with an exchange policy. Same deal — there were no exchange policies that had all three of her docs “in network”.)
The fact that Medicare is, as you note, a single payer plan, and is also quite effective, seems worth noticing.
My wife and I are transitioning to Medicare this year. I have come to the conclusion that Medicare is not single payer in the sense that most people in the US — and all of the rest of the world — use the term. More than half of Medicare patients use a Medicare Advantage plan — limited network of doctors and hospitals, a wide range of copays and deductibles, etc. Even traditional Medicare has, in effect, a network of doctors — there are many doctors that will not accept it. In my state, there are large rural areas where there are no doctors that will accept Medicare patients.
In my wife’s case, there were three docs that mattered — her GP, her retina specialist, and her arthritis specialist. She had seen the same three for years. None of the three will accept traditional Medicare. Each of the three accepts a single Medicare Advantage plan, but no two of them accept the same Advantage plan. Switching to Medicare has meant new docs all around for her.
The real distinguishing characteristic of single-payer is that docs don’t have a choice. They either accept patients that have insurance, or they operate a concierge service for the wealthy who can pay for care themselves.
(Note: For reasons I won’t go into, we had to start the year with an exchange policy. Same deal — there were no exchange policies that had all three of her docs “in network”.)
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-today-president-says-house-intelligence-chief-devin-nunes-should-get-medal-2018-10-11?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdszMT0KgCY
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-today-president-says-house-intelligence-chief-devin-nunes-should-get-medal-2018-10-11?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdszMT0KgCY
“balls and strikes”
Laura Sandoval receives the full Kavanaugh/Judge republican four-hand 20-finger fuck and lives to be billed for it:
https://harpers.org/archive/2018/10/checkpoint-nation-cbp-search-and-seizures-civil-rights-abuses/
The reckoning is coming and it will be a savage one.
“balls and strikes”
Laura Sandoval receives the full Kavanaugh/Judge republican four-hand 20-finger fuck and lives to be billed for it:
https://harpers.org/archive/2018/10/checkpoint-nation-cbp-search-and-seizures-civil-rights-abuses/
The reckoning is coming and it will be a savage one.
bc, a couple of points, discussed at length because you want me to demonstrate a ‘little perspective’.
First of all, read what I wrote very very closely. Let me put it here in case you missed it.
sapient, a piece of advice: stop biting hooks. I know it may seem that you are being told to quiet down, but what if you thought of the possibility that bc _wants_ the kind of back and forth you seem eager to give him? Wait until he actually formulates an argument with data is what I suggest. And all I ask.
followed by
If there is that response, I’m sure it will be burned into the minds of the other commenters minds and will come up again and you can go back to it. Think Haley’s comet…
If you look closely, you’ll see I didn’t call you a troll. But if your goal was to get someone to acknowledge that you aren’t a troll, well done! A couple of threads from now, you can then say ‘well, lj called me a troll, so…’ It won’t make it true, but it will probably work, I mean, it worked on russell and it wasn’t even in a different thread.
Now, perhaps you believe I have a view of trolling similar to this joke told by Chris Pratt, and from time to time I do, but if you could explain the difference between coming over here to snark on liberals and trolling, I could understand why you believe that pointing out that you haven’t made any arguments with data since your return is accusing you of being a troll.
Second, If I tell sapient to wait for data from you before bothering to respond, it’s not a really powerful retort to say ‘but sapient doesn’t provide any data either,’ though I’m probably just imagine you saying ‘neener, neener’ after that.
Third, if you are expecting me or other libs on this board to demonstrate the same qualities as Hilzoy, I think you are going to be disappointed. In fact, I know it. But more about that later.
You may have noticed that I cut a lot of slack to people venting. Hell, Marty seems to be doing his best impression of Krakatoa with each passing thread. I’ve spent far more time than I would have liked addressing sapient’s anger at other commenters. I have a pretty bad temper, and I understand how it can take over. I’m sure both of them feel totally justified in expressing their anger, and it is not my place to tell Marty, Sapient or anyone else they don’t have a right to be angry. I _can_ tell them that I feel the object of their anger is misplaced, as I think it was here.
To review, Sapient reacted to your
Add in Jrudkis’ point about running for the electoral college and well, advantage “conservatives”.
Did you expect some sort of reasoned response? (I’ve got to note, that ‘well’ before advantage is a real gem of a word that doesn’t do anything in the sentence but work to make sure that people who disagree with you are pissed. Well done!) I mean, I just ignored it, and I wish sapient would have too, but it was just snark. If I were to have explored it further, I would have asked ‘well, it depends on what you mean by ‘advantage’, and given that we’ve been talking about how one problem seems to be that we are reaching a point where both sides concentrate on winning, it seems to sum up the problem with conservatives in a nutshell. Btw, could you tell me precisely which point of jrudkis do you feel supports the idea that conservatives are the ‘winners’?’
I might have even dropped this link into the mix to suggest that one side worries about rules, the other side doesn’t.
But, really, ‘advantage ‘conservatives” (and why is conservatives in quotation marks? Because jrudkis isn’t a real conservative, so him making that argument means that you are making some sort of bipartisan point? I have no idea, but whatever it means, it doesn’t seem to be thought out, which is the point) is not some sort of nuanced point, it’s just pulling on chains. Maybe I misread it and you were making some incredibly nuanced argument about the Bush-Gore election that I missed. Here’s your chance to enlighten me.
Something happened in my absence, apparently between you and Marty, and it may have colored your perspective on those to the right of center. Just sayin’.
First of all, it isn’t clear if that ‘you’ is sapient or me. But if it’s me, that’s another pretty weak attempt at snark, which when viewed from particular angles, seems a lot like a troll. It’s not like discussions here are like Kavanaugh’s work product, hidden from view. You can go back. Or is this your idea of a reasoned argument? ‘I guess something happened back then, so I can draw this opinion. Just sayin” I mean, you did ask me for a little perspective.
And if you haven’t noticed, a hell of a lot of stuff has happened in the world, and it all leaves me even more unimpressed by people trying to maintain that the Party of Trump has the slightest relevance to an American future that I want to see, and that group of people seems to include you. You certainly don’t seem to fussed about anything that has happened and if you do think the party of Trump is doing something right, I urge you to point it out to us, cause I sure as hell don’t see it. But if you don’t, but still want to snipe at liberals because, I don’t know, we don’t strike the right tone about the party of Trump, thanks, let’s don’t and say we did.
Finally, I’d point out that Hilzoy arose out of a liberal environment and a liberal tradition. That the rest of us don’t match up to her shouldn’t be taken as a condemnation of liberalism, unless you can point us to a Hilzoy of the right who is able to demonstrate the same traits and who comes from a conservative tradition. Your citation of Hilzoy is not meant to acknowledge her grounding in liberal principles, it is to try and guilt everyone into treating you like a serious commentator. But you seem to acknowledge that you are here for the snark and we should not wait for any thoughtful arguments from you, backed by data. No problem, but don’t expect me to berate sapient for not treating your arguments with more consideration then they deserve.
bc, a couple of points, discussed at length because you want me to demonstrate a ‘little perspective’.
First of all, read what I wrote very very closely. Let me put it here in case you missed it.
sapient, a piece of advice: stop biting hooks. I know it may seem that you are being told to quiet down, but what if you thought of the possibility that bc _wants_ the kind of back and forth you seem eager to give him? Wait until he actually formulates an argument with data is what I suggest. And all I ask.
followed by
If there is that response, I’m sure it will be burned into the minds of the other commenters minds and will come up again and you can go back to it. Think Haley’s comet…
If you look closely, you’ll see I didn’t call you a troll. But if your goal was to get someone to acknowledge that you aren’t a troll, well done! A couple of threads from now, you can then say ‘well, lj called me a troll, so…’ It won’t make it true, but it will probably work, I mean, it worked on russell and it wasn’t even in a different thread.
Now, perhaps you believe I have a view of trolling similar to this joke told by Chris Pratt, and from time to time I do, but if you could explain the difference between coming over here to snark on liberals and trolling, I could understand why you believe that pointing out that you haven’t made any arguments with data since your return is accusing you of being a troll.
Second, If I tell sapient to wait for data from you before bothering to respond, it’s not a really powerful retort to say ‘but sapient doesn’t provide any data either,’ though I’m probably just imagine you saying ‘neener, neener’ after that.
Third, if you are expecting me or other libs on this board to demonstrate the same qualities as Hilzoy, I think you are going to be disappointed. In fact, I know it. But more about that later.
You may have noticed that I cut a lot of slack to people venting. Hell, Marty seems to be doing his best impression of Krakatoa with each passing thread. I’ve spent far more time than I would have liked addressing sapient’s anger at other commenters. I have a pretty bad temper, and I understand how it can take over. I’m sure both of them feel totally justified in expressing their anger, and it is not my place to tell Marty, Sapient or anyone else they don’t have a right to be angry. I _can_ tell them that I feel the object of their anger is misplaced, as I think it was here.
To review, Sapient reacted to your
Add in Jrudkis’ point about running for the electoral college and well, advantage “conservatives”.
Did you expect some sort of reasoned response? (I’ve got to note, that ‘well’ before advantage is a real gem of a word that doesn’t do anything in the sentence but work to make sure that people who disagree with you are pissed. Well done!) I mean, I just ignored it, and I wish sapient would have too, but it was just snark. If I were to have explored it further, I would have asked ‘well, it depends on what you mean by ‘advantage’, and given that we’ve been talking about how one problem seems to be that we are reaching a point where both sides concentrate on winning, it seems to sum up the problem with conservatives in a nutshell. Btw, could you tell me precisely which point of jrudkis do you feel supports the idea that conservatives are the ‘winners’?’
I might have even dropped this link into the mix to suggest that one side worries about rules, the other side doesn’t.
But, really, ‘advantage ‘conservatives” (and why is conservatives in quotation marks? Because jrudkis isn’t a real conservative, so him making that argument means that you are making some sort of bipartisan point? I have no idea, but whatever it means, it doesn’t seem to be thought out, which is the point) is not some sort of nuanced point, it’s just pulling on chains. Maybe I misread it and you were making some incredibly nuanced argument about the Bush-Gore election that I missed. Here’s your chance to enlighten me.
Something happened in my absence, apparently between you and Marty, and it may have colored your perspective on those to the right of center. Just sayin’.
First of all, it isn’t clear if that ‘you’ is sapient or me. But if it’s me, that’s another pretty weak attempt at snark, which when viewed from particular angles, seems a lot like a troll. It’s not like discussions here are like Kavanaugh’s work product, hidden from view. You can go back. Or is this your idea of a reasoned argument? ‘I guess something happened back then, so I can draw this opinion. Just sayin” I mean, you did ask me for a little perspective.
And if you haven’t noticed, a hell of a lot of stuff has happened in the world, and it all leaves me even more unimpressed by people trying to maintain that the Party of Trump has the slightest relevance to an American future that I want to see, and that group of people seems to include you. You certainly don’t seem to fussed about anything that has happened and if you do think the party of Trump is doing something right, I urge you to point it out to us, cause I sure as hell don’t see it. But if you don’t, but still want to snipe at liberals because, I don’t know, we don’t strike the right tone about the party of Trump, thanks, let’s don’t and say we did.
Finally, I’d point out that Hilzoy arose out of a liberal environment and a liberal tradition. That the rest of us don’t match up to her shouldn’t be taken as a condemnation of liberalism, unless you can point us to a Hilzoy of the right who is able to demonstrate the same traits and who comes from a conservative tradition. Your citation of Hilzoy is not meant to acknowledge her grounding in liberal principles, it is to try and guilt everyone into treating you like a serious commentator. But you seem to acknowledge that you are here for the snark and we should not wait for any thoughtful arguments from you, backed by data. No problem, but don’t expect me to berate sapient for not treating your arguments with more consideration then they deserve.
it worked on russell
I believe it was sapient who called bc a troll. Which didn’t really bug me, we all get fed up at some point, I just thought it deserved correction.
FWIW, I don’t receive sarcasm as evidence of bad faith. It’s just a style.
Everybody responds to different styles differently.
it worked on russell
I believe it was sapient who called bc a troll. Which didn’t really bug me, we all get fed up at some point, I just thought it deserved correction.
FWIW, I don’t receive sarcasm as evidence of bad faith. It’s just a style.
Everybody responds to different styles differently.
bc appealed to me to say and said “And lj, how about a little perspective here? You know I don’t troll.”
and then
“having lj feed the real trolling going on here is a bit much.”
Yeah, everyone has their own style, but appealing to me to bust sapient when bc is posting a zinger that gets precisely the reaction he wants, well, I think he should really think hard if he wants to be judged. At least by me. And given the number of times I’ve had to ask sapient to step back, I don’t particularly like being told that I am feeding the ‘real trolling’.
bc appealed to me to say and said “And lj, how about a little perspective here? You know I don’t troll.”
and then
“having lj feed the real trolling going on here is a bit much.”
Yeah, everyone has their own style, but appealing to me to bust sapient when bc is posting a zinger that gets precisely the reaction he wants, well, I think he should really think hard if he wants to be judged. At least by me. And given the number of times I’ve had to ask sapient to step back, I don’t particularly like being told that I am feeding the ‘real trolling’.
balls and strikes.
Which is a lot more tolerable if the umpire at least has the same strike zone for both sides. Which is what will, I expect, make Kavanaugh more intolerable then even Thomas for anyone to the left of Roberts.
balls and strikes.
Which is a lot more tolerable if the umpire at least has the same strike zone for both sides. Which is what will, I expect, make Kavanaugh more intolerable then even Thomas for anyone to the left of Roberts.
having lj feed the real trolling going on here is a bit much
Yeah, I’d say that was out of line, and deserved a response.
having lj feed the real trolling going on here is a bit much
Yeah, I’d say that was out of line, and deserved a response.
To be fair, I think the R plan is “the market will take care of it”. It’s the invisible hand that says “sucks to be you”.
And that plan can only make sense to someone who really doesn’t get things like variance, risk aversion, insurance, asymmetric information, etc., not to mention having no concept of social insurance.
It’s not just cruelty, it’s stupidity.
To be fair, I think the R plan is “the market will take care of it”. It’s the invisible hand that says “sucks to be you”.
And that plan can only make sense to someone who really doesn’t get things like variance, risk aversion, insurance, asymmetric information, etc., not to mention having no concept of social insurance.
It’s not just cruelty, it’s stupidity.
I thought this was interesting.
We’ll see what happens next month.
I thought this was interesting.
We’ll see what happens next month.
I know how Kanye feels…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45826875
Trump makes me feel like Einstein.
I know how Kanye feels…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45826875
Trump makes me feel like Einstein.
lj:
I was working on a response to your 10:16 but read your 10:54 and I’m going to address that instead. Plus I read russell’s 11:43.
I didn’t post my 6:08 p.m. to get a “reaction” as you seem to describe it. I didn’t use “well” before “advantage” as some sort of “word bomb” or “zinger” to light the fuse of those already upset. I didn’t want sapient’s reaction at all. Full stop.
That some would disagree is not surprising. That some would actually be triggered by that is. I’m not going to concede that a reasonable person would read it that way (as a “troll” comment) without at least asking me for clarification.
My comment may have not been “well thought out” as I would in writing a lecture, but I actually (believe it or not) sensed my point wouldn’t be popular (surprise, surprise) and softened, if you will, the argument by specifically acknowledging the “popular vote” argument. I didn’t deride it. It’s real. It’s data. I get it. Point taken (meaning I lend it some credence).
But there is also data in terms of votes for McMullen, Johnson, Stein. By adding those together and assigning them to “sides” and using “simple math” I was noting the imprecision and LACK of data that would allow us to definitively know if IN FACT the majority of Americans are on one side or the other, hence IMHO weakening significantly the “popular vote” mandate argument. Byomtov pointed out the limitations of using those other votes (I think it was Byomtov). I agree with that point. On reflection, I see that “simple math” could be read as “definitive math” and that wasn’t my point. I meant it as “painting with a really broad brush here.” My bad. My point was simply “here is how I see it.” Nothing more. Inviting a conversation? Yes. Trolling? No way, unless one defines any effort to have a conversation as trolling.
The response from sapient was “Nazi!” How does one get from my point to that? Seemed troll-like to me. I don’t know sapient’s history and your efforts to quell her anger so I readily acknowledge that I may have overreacted and misinterpreted your response to her. But color me confused.
I didn’t take your comments to sapient as “the object of your anger is misplaced” at all. It seemed to me that there were several implications that I am not to be taken seriously (implying trolldom, efforts to patronizing sapient, having fun at my expense or something I am too dense to figure out). To wit:
-“Wait until he has data.”
-“Stop biting hooks”
-“burned into the minds”
If I read these wrong, I apologize. To me, the implication was that my arguments are so derided that if I make a SERIOUS argument supported by data it will be so amazing that all will stop and look in wonder as my rare worthy arguments fly by every 75 years. That, to me, seemed to be “feeding the troll” and doing so at my expense.
I didn’t appeal to you until you made the comment to sapient. I appealed to you then because I thought you knew me enough from past experience to know I wasn’t shooting a “zinger” for fun and frolic.
In the end, I find it hard to understand how a simple point, even as ham-handed as it may have been, would result in this reaction.
Btw, could you tell me precisely which point of jrudkis do you feel supports the idea that conservatives are the ‘winners’?’
IMHO, the imprecise numbers we have from the last election, as explained above, rebut (but note, do not completely refute) 😉 the argument that the majority of Americans are on the “liberal” (used loosely here) side. Add in jrudkis’ points about strategy to win the EC vs. popular vote and I think the balance tips against the “popular vote” argument. My opinion. YMMV. Hence “advantage ‘conservatives'”, an expression I now regret making because I didn’t know there were so many eggshells on the floor.
lj:
I was working on a response to your 10:16 but read your 10:54 and I’m going to address that instead. Plus I read russell’s 11:43.
I didn’t post my 6:08 p.m. to get a “reaction” as you seem to describe it. I didn’t use “well” before “advantage” as some sort of “word bomb” or “zinger” to light the fuse of those already upset. I didn’t want sapient’s reaction at all. Full stop.
That some would disagree is not surprising. That some would actually be triggered by that is. I’m not going to concede that a reasonable person would read it that way (as a “troll” comment) without at least asking me for clarification.
My comment may have not been “well thought out” as I would in writing a lecture, but I actually (believe it or not) sensed my point wouldn’t be popular (surprise, surprise) and softened, if you will, the argument by specifically acknowledging the “popular vote” argument. I didn’t deride it. It’s real. It’s data. I get it. Point taken (meaning I lend it some credence).
But there is also data in terms of votes for McMullen, Johnson, Stein. By adding those together and assigning them to “sides” and using “simple math” I was noting the imprecision and LACK of data that would allow us to definitively know if IN FACT the majority of Americans are on one side or the other, hence IMHO weakening significantly the “popular vote” mandate argument. Byomtov pointed out the limitations of using those other votes (I think it was Byomtov). I agree with that point. On reflection, I see that “simple math” could be read as “definitive math” and that wasn’t my point. I meant it as “painting with a really broad brush here.” My bad. My point was simply “here is how I see it.” Nothing more. Inviting a conversation? Yes. Trolling? No way, unless one defines any effort to have a conversation as trolling.
The response from sapient was “Nazi!” How does one get from my point to that? Seemed troll-like to me. I don’t know sapient’s history and your efforts to quell her anger so I readily acknowledge that I may have overreacted and misinterpreted your response to her. But color me confused.
I didn’t take your comments to sapient as “the object of your anger is misplaced” at all. It seemed to me that there were several implications that I am not to be taken seriously (implying trolldom, efforts to patronizing sapient, having fun at my expense or something I am too dense to figure out). To wit:
-“Wait until he has data.”
-“Stop biting hooks”
-“burned into the minds”
If I read these wrong, I apologize. To me, the implication was that my arguments are so derided that if I make a SERIOUS argument supported by data it will be so amazing that all will stop and look in wonder as my rare worthy arguments fly by every 75 years. That, to me, seemed to be “feeding the troll” and doing so at my expense.
I didn’t appeal to you until you made the comment to sapient. I appealed to you then because I thought you knew me enough from past experience to know I wasn’t shooting a “zinger” for fun and frolic.
In the end, I find it hard to understand how a simple point, even as ham-handed as it may have been, would result in this reaction.
Btw, could you tell me precisely which point of jrudkis do you feel supports the idea that conservatives are the ‘winners’?’
IMHO, the imprecise numbers we have from the last election, as explained above, rebut (but note, do not completely refute) 😉 the argument that the majority of Americans are on the “liberal” (used loosely here) side. Add in jrudkis’ points about strategy to win the EC vs. popular vote and I think the balance tips against the “popular vote” argument. My opinion. YMMV. Hence “advantage ‘conservatives'”, an expression I now regret making because I didn’t know there were so many eggshells on the floor.
the argument that the majority of Americans are on the “liberal” (used loosely here) side.
I would not argue that more Americans are “liberal” than not. I don’t think the term has any particularly useful meaning any more.
It mostly seems to mean “somebody who gives a crap about other people”. But I digress.
I would make the argument that (R) representation at the national level is significantly more than what is warranted by the number of their supporters in the overall population.
Which I ascribe to (a) the Senate and (b) gerrymandering.
Liberal vs conservative is not the same as (D) vs (R).
In any case, my point when I bring this up is basically to counter the claim that Trump has any kind of mandate for the bullshit he is dropping on the nation.
If you want to say that Clinton would likewise not be able to claim any kind of overwhelming support, had she won the election, I won’t argue the point. But it’s moot, because she didn’t.
The (R)’s in general have managed to achieve politically dominating positions in the executive, the legislative, and now the judicial branches of government. And they are using that power to roll out policies that are not representative of the wishes of the population as a whole.
And there’s a reason that their policies are not representative of the wishes of the population as a whole – they suck. The policies suck. They are harmful.
So I look forward to the day when the balance of power is restored to something closer to the sentiments of the people who live here.
Which will happen.
the argument that the majority of Americans are on the “liberal” (used loosely here) side.
I would not argue that more Americans are “liberal” than not. I don’t think the term has any particularly useful meaning any more.
It mostly seems to mean “somebody who gives a crap about other people”. But I digress.
I would make the argument that (R) representation at the national level is significantly more than what is warranted by the number of their supporters in the overall population.
Which I ascribe to (a) the Senate and (b) gerrymandering.
Liberal vs conservative is not the same as (D) vs (R).
In any case, my point when I bring this up is basically to counter the claim that Trump has any kind of mandate for the bullshit he is dropping on the nation.
If you want to say that Clinton would likewise not be able to claim any kind of overwhelming support, had she won the election, I won’t argue the point. But it’s moot, because she didn’t.
The (R)’s in general have managed to achieve politically dominating positions in the executive, the legislative, and now the judicial branches of government. And they are using that power to roll out policies that are not representative of the wishes of the population as a whole.
And there’s a reason that their policies are not representative of the wishes of the population as a whole – they suck. The policies suck. They are harmful.
So I look forward to the day when the balance of power is restored to something closer to the sentiments of the people who live here.
Which will happen.
So … anyone have any cute kitten stories?
So … anyone have any cute kitten stories?
I thought this interesting, too.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
I thought this interesting, too.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
Crap. russell totally ruined my comedic timing, which would otherwise have been SHARP AS A RAZOR.
Crap. russell totally ruined my comedic timing, which would otherwise have been SHARP AS A RAZOR.
the majority of Americans are on the “liberal” (used loosely here) side.
I’d say that actually the majority of Americans are “conservative” — in the sense that they think that things mostly are OK and shouldn’t be changed. Or, in some cases, returned to how they were at some point in the past.
That is by no means the same as thinking that everything should be left alone. There are a lot of areas where they think that things should change, and that we should try something new. Some just tweaked; some changed a lot. But changed.
And, just to be clear, the “return to the past” sentiment is more (by no means exclusively, but more) in the sense of economics than, for example, race relations. Back to more economic mobility, back to more economic equality — not anything like straight equality, but more like we saw in, for example, the 1950s.
At the moment, that isn’t much on offer. The Republicans appear devoted to the 1800s Gilded Age, on everything from massive favoritism for the rich to nasty race relations. The Democrats are well over on the liberal side.**
For a while, I think the majority inclined to the GOP as less bad; albeit with lots of caveats. After the past couple of years, that has changed — they may still have serious reservations about the Democrats’ approach to things, but that the current Republicans are worse is pretty clear.
** Obama, popular mythology notwithstanding, was a pretty conservative guy. If it wasn’t for the permanent suntan and funny name, he’d have been seen as a Blue Dog Democrat by most of the electorate. Albeit not by the ideologues of the commentariate. Which, I submit, is why he won — doing well with parts of the electorate which just aren’t otherwise viewed as liberal.
the majority of Americans are on the “liberal” (used loosely here) side.
I’d say that actually the majority of Americans are “conservative” — in the sense that they think that things mostly are OK and shouldn’t be changed. Or, in some cases, returned to how they were at some point in the past.
That is by no means the same as thinking that everything should be left alone. There are a lot of areas where they think that things should change, and that we should try something new. Some just tweaked; some changed a lot. But changed.
And, just to be clear, the “return to the past” sentiment is more (by no means exclusively, but more) in the sense of economics than, for example, race relations. Back to more economic mobility, back to more economic equality — not anything like straight equality, but more like we saw in, for example, the 1950s.
At the moment, that isn’t much on offer. The Republicans appear devoted to the 1800s Gilded Age, on everything from massive favoritism for the rich to nasty race relations. The Democrats are well over on the liberal side.**
For a while, I think the majority inclined to the GOP as less bad; albeit with lots of caveats. After the past couple of years, that has changed — they may still have serious reservations about the Democrats’ approach to things, but that the current Republicans are worse is pretty clear.
** Obama, popular mythology notwithstanding, was a pretty conservative guy. If it wasn’t for the permanent suntan and funny name, he’d have been seen as a Blue Dog Democrat by most of the electorate. Albeit not by the ideologues of the commentariate. Which, I submit, is why he won — doing well with parts of the electorate which just aren’t otherwise viewed as liberal.
russell: Conservatives (and libertarians!) who show up here generally get piled on. I appreciate the ones who are willing to put up with it.
So do I. They save me the trouble of looking around the internet for amusing wrongness and comical pigheadedness to laugh at.
To be fair, most of us here can be called pigheaded. Can anybody name a long-term participant at ObWi, other than Jrudkis, who has “changed teams” in the last decade? Maybe wj would qualify, except he still wears the old uniform.
For my part, I came here as a commie pinko librul and my determination to destroy America by mocking conservative values and libertarian ideals has only increased with exposure to the writings of Marty, McKinney, bc, CharlesWT, and the inimitable Brett Bellmore. I thank them all.
–TP
russell: Conservatives (and libertarians!) who show up here generally get piled on. I appreciate the ones who are willing to put up with it.
So do I. They save me the trouble of looking around the internet for amusing wrongness and comical pigheadedness to laugh at.
To be fair, most of us here can be called pigheaded. Can anybody name a long-term participant at ObWi, other than Jrudkis, who has “changed teams” in the last decade? Maybe wj would qualify, except he still wears the old uniform.
For my part, I came here as a commie pinko librul and my determination to destroy America by mocking conservative values and libertarian ideals has only increased with exposure to the writings of Marty, McKinney, bc, CharlesWT, and the inimitable Brett Bellmore. I thank them all.
–TP
hsh: lol. I deserved that.
TP: say it isn’t so!
hsh: lol. I deserved that.
TP: say it isn’t so!
russell totally ruined my comedic timing
it’s true, as a straight man, I am complete and utter rubbish.
🙁
the majority of Americans are on the “liberal” (used loosely here) side.
I’d say that actually the majority of Americans are “conservative”
I’d say that most Americans don’t identify all that strongly with either point of view other than as a kind of habitual tribal identity. If that.
IMO most people don’t care that much about politics, and generally dread election cycles because the volume of what they see as a flood of BS goes up to 11.
People mostly like the stuff that the public sector provides to them – roads, schools, cops and firemen, water, electricity, maybe gas – they just don’t associate any that with the government.
There is also a fairly large realm of stuff that the public sector does for them that they benefit from every day, and probably never notice. Financial regulations, public health and safety, food and drug regulation, professional standards and best practices. The air is not brown anymore in most major American cities, but I doubt anyone thinks of that as something the “government did”.
They even like “welfare”, they just don’t think of it as “welfare”. Social Security, Medicare when they’re old. Medicaid if they don’t have a lot of money. Small business loan guarantees. Subsidies and tax deals for all kinds of industries, include agriculture, defense contracting, energy, manufacturing.
People like all of that stuff. They just don’t think of it as something the government does for them. Or, they “deserve it”, in some kind of way that all of the other beneficiaries of the public sector don’t.
Basically I don’t think people are all that thoughtful about their relationship to the government, or to the public sphere in general.
They just live their lives. When the public sector does stuff they like, they just assume that’s the way it should be. When they public sector does stuff they don’t like, they think the government sucks.
You don’t miss the water until the well runs dry.
russell totally ruined my comedic timing
it’s true, as a straight man, I am complete and utter rubbish.
🙁
the majority of Americans are on the “liberal” (used loosely here) side.
I’d say that actually the majority of Americans are “conservative”
I’d say that most Americans don’t identify all that strongly with either point of view other than as a kind of habitual tribal identity. If that.
IMO most people don’t care that much about politics, and generally dread election cycles because the volume of what they see as a flood of BS goes up to 11.
People mostly like the stuff that the public sector provides to them – roads, schools, cops and firemen, water, electricity, maybe gas – they just don’t associate any that with the government.
There is also a fairly large realm of stuff that the public sector does for them that they benefit from every day, and probably never notice. Financial regulations, public health and safety, food and drug regulation, professional standards and best practices. The air is not brown anymore in most major American cities, but I doubt anyone thinks of that as something the “government did”.
They even like “welfare”, they just don’t think of it as “welfare”. Social Security, Medicare when they’re old. Medicaid if they don’t have a lot of money. Small business loan guarantees. Subsidies and tax deals for all kinds of industries, include agriculture, defense contracting, energy, manufacturing.
People like all of that stuff. They just don’t think of it as something the government does for them. Or, they “deserve it”, in some kind of way that all of the other beneficiaries of the public sector don’t.
Basically I don’t think people are all that thoughtful about their relationship to the government, or to the public sphere in general.
They just live their lives. When the public sector does stuff they like, they just assume that’s the way it should be. When they public sector does stuff they don’t like, they think the government sucks.
You don’t miss the water until the well runs dry.
Obama, popular mythology notwithstanding, was a pretty conservative guy.
I’ve been saying this since about 2007.
What’s amusing, to me, is that the same thing isn’t recognized about Clinton. Either Clinton.
Obama, popular mythology notwithstanding, was a pretty conservative guy.
I’ve been saying this since about 2007.
What’s amusing, to me, is that the same thing isn’t recognized about Clinton. Either Clinton.
Or, Elizabeth Warren.
Or, Elizabeth Warren.
Looking at the world thru someone else’s eyeglasses torques your eyeballs. For me, looking at the world thru someone else’s worldview torques my brain. 🙂
Looking at the world thru someone else’s eyeglasses torques your eyeballs. For me, looking at the world thru someone else’s worldview torques my brain. 🙂
bc, I thank you for the time you took to make your reply and the sentiments expressed. I’m pretty sure that no one wants to read an equally long reply relitigating Gore v, Bush so I’m happy to accept that you didn’t mean what I read into your comment and further note that just because something is a simple point and you don’t know how someone could take offense, this is the internet and anyone who has been on it for any length of time should realize that precisely because it is shorn of any kind of context is the reason why someone would take offense.
I’ll echo russell’s point that I appreciate the people from the right who come here and I have acknowledged, over and over, that they do often end up on the bottom of a big pile and I have tried to step in when the pile has gotten too much. But don’t take my word, go back and look. And don’t infer that things that have happened when you weren’t reading the blog account for my distemper. Just ask, I’m happy to tell you.
I’ll also note in closing that at least in my experience, being a minority means that the burden of being nice and attending to the norms of majority is on you, not the other way around. This means it is the person in the minority who is the one who has to adapt to the prevailing norm, not the other way around. Noting any similarities to situations now ongoing is an exercise left to the reader.
bc, I thank you for the time you took to make your reply and the sentiments expressed. I’m pretty sure that no one wants to read an equally long reply relitigating Gore v, Bush so I’m happy to accept that you didn’t mean what I read into your comment and further note that just because something is a simple point and you don’t know how someone could take offense, this is the internet and anyone who has been on it for any length of time should realize that precisely because it is shorn of any kind of context is the reason why someone would take offense.
I’ll echo russell’s point that I appreciate the people from the right who come here and I have acknowledged, over and over, that they do often end up on the bottom of a big pile and I have tried to step in when the pile has gotten too much. But don’t take my word, go back and look. And don’t infer that things that have happened when you weren’t reading the blog account for my distemper. Just ask, I’m happy to tell you.
I’ll also note in closing that at least in my experience, being a minority means that the burden of being nice and attending to the norms of majority is on you, not the other way around. This means it is the person in the minority who is the one who has to adapt to the prevailing norm, not the other way around. Noting any similarities to situations now ongoing is an exercise left to the reader.
The response from sapient was “Nazi!” How does one get from my point to that? Seemed troll-like to me. I don’t know sapient’s history and your efforts to quell her anger so I readily acknowledge that I may have overreacted and misinterpreted your response to her. But color me confused.
My comments were not well considered. I apologize for making you feel unwelcome. I’ve mentioned that some people posting comments here should be ignored. Too often I am one of those people, although I hope that people are able to recognize a frustrated rant, and move on.
I actually spend time drafting a response to the one question you posed on the wrong thread that I had “overlooked” and put thought and effort into it to boot, but in the meantime you made it clear to me that you really didn’t care to listen so I didn’t post the comment. If you want to hear my answer, let me know. Glad to share (if you remember the question).
I don’t remember the question, but I would love to read a thoughtful comment from you, bc. I find it odd that you would take the time to write a thoughtful comment, then decide not to post it because you think I’m an unwelcoming person, when there are many other people here who, I’m sure, would love to read it, even if I’m too angry to give it the time it deserves.
The only substantive thing you’ve mentioned in this thread is that although Hillary Clinton prevailed over Donald Trump with the popular vote, there were many people who were disaffected enough to vote for other people. That’s absolutely true. Your comment doesn’t take into account Russian interference or voter suppression, but you’re absolutely right about the numbers.
I don’t have a long memory of your participation here, so maybe you’ve made a lot of your views well known, but I’m not recalling a lot of thoughtful interaction about Republican policies. If you agree with most Republican policies, perhaps you should defend them. You say you don’t like the family separation policy, but it hasn’t yet been fixed, so I’m wondering whether you’ve written a letter to your representatives, or have spoken up against them in other meaningful ways. How about massive numbers of children in tents in Texas? If you love children, beginning at the moment of conception, how can you not be as angry as I am about these human rights abuses against children?
Instead of dealing with my personality (when it’s quite easy to avoid my comments by pie filtering me, something I pointed out once before), why don’t you defend Brett Kavanaugh if you like him? Do you like him? What do you think of the Voting Rights Act? Do you disagree that Republicans are working hard to suppress votes from traditionally Democratic groups? These are much more interesting topics than “sapient is mean to me.”
I’ve been coming here to rant for quite a long time. Most of my frustrations are generally shared by some of the people here. That hasn’t always been the case. When my views have been unpopular, I’ve sometimes been rude, but I’ve also taken the time to defend my views quite substantively and thoroughly.
Do you have any misgivings about Trump’s criminality? About his attitude and possible collusion with foreign governments? How about the Saudi journalist that is believed to have been murdered and dismembered, and the Trump family’s financial ties with Saudis?
I’m glad you’re not a Nazi, and I believe you when you say you aren’t. What do you think about the Republican Party? Do you vote for Republicans? In the Senate? In Congress? I think Republicans are behaving like fascists. If you support them, it would be nice to know why. Tax cuts? Is that so important that all of the human rights abuses, criminality, appointing a lying frat boy the Supreme Court … is that all worth it?
Maybe you should stop sulking and defend your “conservative” values.
The response from sapient was “Nazi!” How does one get from my point to that? Seemed troll-like to me. I don’t know sapient’s history and your efforts to quell her anger so I readily acknowledge that I may have overreacted and misinterpreted your response to her. But color me confused.
My comments were not well considered. I apologize for making you feel unwelcome. I’ve mentioned that some people posting comments here should be ignored. Too often I am one of those people, although I hope that people are able to recognize a frustrated rant, and move on.
I actually spend time drafting a response to the one question you posed on the wrong thread that I had “overlooked” and put thought and effort into it to boot, but in the meantime you made it clear to me that you really didn’t care to listen so I didn’t post the comment. If you want to hear my answer, let me know. Glad to share (if you remember the question).
I don’t remember the question, but I would love to read a thoughtful comment from you, bc. I find it odd that you would take the time to write a thoughtful comment, then decide not to post it because you think I’m an unwelcoming person, when there are many other people here who, I’m sure, would love to read it, even if I’m too angry to give it the time it deserves.
The only substantive thing you’ve mentioned in this thread is that although Hillary Clinton prevailed over Donald Trump with the popular vote, there were many people who were disaffected enough to vote for other people. That’s absolutely true. Your comment doesn’t take into account Russian interference or voter suppression, but you’re absolutely right about the numbers.
I don’t have a long memory of your participation here, so maybe you’ve made a lot of your views well known, but I’m not recalling a lot of thoughtful interaction about Republican policies. If you agree with most Republican policies, perhaps you should defend them. You say you don’t like the family separation policy, but it hasn’t yet been fixed, so I’m wondering whether you’ve written a letter to your representatives, or have spoken up against them in other meaningful ways. How about massive numbers of children in tents in Texas? If you love children, beginning at the moment of conception, how can you not be as angry as I am about these human rights abuses against children?
Instead of dealing with my personality (when it’s quite easy to avoid my comments by pie filtering me, something I pointed out once before), why don’t you defend Brett Kavanaugh if you like him? Do you like him? What do you think of the Voting Rights Act? Do you disagree that Republicans are working hard to suppress votes from traditionally Democratic groups? These are much more interesting topics than “sapient is mean to me.”
I’ve been coming here to rant for quite a long time. Most of my frustrations are generally shared by some of the people here. That hasn’t always been the case. When my views have been unpopular, I’ve sometimes been rude, but I’ve also taken the time to defend my views quite substantively and thoroughly.
Do you have any misgivings about Trump’s criminality? About his attitude and possible collusion with foreign governments? How about the Saudi journalist that is believed to have been murdered and dismembered, and the Trump family’s financial ties with Saudis?
I’m glad you’re not a Nazi, and I believe you when you say you aren’t. What do you think about the Republican Party? Do you vote for Republicans? In the Senate? In Congress? I think Republicans are behaving like fascists. If you support them, it would be nice to know why. Tax cuts? Is that so important that all of the human rights abuses, criminality, appointing a lying frat boy the Supreme Court … is that all worth it?
Maybe you should stop sulking and defend your “conservative” values.
What’s amusing, to me, is that the same thing isn’t recognized about Clinton. Either Clinton.
Indeed. Name one prominent Dem who has come out forthrightly for the abolition of the system of private property, eh?
That used to be the lodestar of what was known world wide as “the left”.
Alas, they could be just as insufferable as their political counterparts. If the GOP were to promote and televise debates between the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Revolutionary Socialist Party, why the would create conservatives in droves.
So you see, GOP political operatives are not as smart as people tend to assume. 🙂
What’s amusing, to me, is that the same thing isn’t recognized about Clinton. Either Clinton.
Indeed. Name one prominent Dem who has come out forthrightly for the abolition of the system of private property, eh?
That used to be the lodestar of what was known world wide as “the left”.
Alas, they could be just as insufferable as their political counterparts. If the GOP were to promote and televise debates between the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Revolutionary Socialist Party, why the would create conservatives in droves.
So you see, GOP political operatives are not as smart as people tend to assume. 🙂
Name one prominent Dem who has come out forthrightly for the abolition of the system of private property, eh?
Not even the means of production! I want my government-produced iPod!!! (After I get one, then you can make sure I don’t actually own it.)
Name one prominent Dem who has come out forthrightly for the abolition of the system of private property, eh?
Not even the means of production! I want my government-produced iPod!!! (After I get one, then you can make sure I don’t actually own it.)
This is the voice of moderation, I wouldn’t go so far as to say we’ve actually SEIZED the means of production …
This is the voice of moderation, I wouldn’t go so far as to say we’ve actually SEIZED the means of production …
Well, Bill Clinton maybe, there was an actual choice then. Obama may have been more conservative in the end because he was forced to be,but its not what he ran on.
And Elizabeth Warren DOES want to take over the means of production so no:
Requires very large American corporations to obtain a federal charter as a “United States corporation,” which obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders:
Well, Bill Clinton maybe, there was an actual choice then. Obama may have been more conservative in the end because he was forced to be,but its not what he ran on.
And Elizabeth Warren DOES want to take over the means of production so no:
Requires very large American corporations to obtain a federal charter as a “United States corporation,” which obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders:
Requires very large American corporations to obtain a federal charter as a “United States corporation,” which obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders
How is this “taking over the means of production”? It’s still a private corporation. (Possibly incorporated by the Feds, rather than a state. But that’s a state/Federal argument, not an ownership of the means of production argument.) It’s a new regulation for businesses to follow, but nothing really more than that.
Now if you want to argue that it’s a bad regulation, fine. Admittedly, that may be challenging before the actual proposed text is available, because the devil is always in the details. But socialism, it ain’t.
Requires very large American corporations to obtain a federal charter as a “United States corporation,” which obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders
How is this “taking over the means of production”? It’s still a private corporation. (Possibly incorporated by the Feds, rather than a state. But that’s a state/Federal argument, not an ownership of the means of production argument.) It’s a new regulation for businesses to follow, but nothing really more than that.
Now if you want to argue that it’s a bad regulation, fine. Admittedly, that may be challenging before the actual proposed text is available, because the devil is always in the details. But socialism, it ain’t.
“Elizabeth Warren DOES want to take over the means of production”
[citation required]
“Elizabeth Warren DOES want to take over the means of production”
[citation required]
It’s a new regulation for businesses to follow, but nothing really more than that.
Is it a new regulation? I mean, isn’t this something we would expect individual states to do, and it’s just dealing with organizations whose size and reach make it more appropriate for the federal government to deal with them? That’s how I would look at it, but I’m a ruthless liberal…
It’s a new regulation for businesses to follow, but nothing really more than that.
Is it a new regulation? I mean, isn’t this something we would expect individual states to do, and it’s just dealing with organizations whose size and reach make it more appropriate for the federal government to deal with them? That’s how I would look at it, but I’m a ruthless liberal…
I mean, isn’t this something we would expect individual states to do, and it’s just dealing with organizations whose size and reach make it more appropriate for the federal government to deal with them?
This seems right to me, although I haven’t seen the legislation. No links were provided, and I don’t want to look into it further at the moment, but corporations receive their charter from states. Most large corporations are chartered in Delaware, which exists in part to provide corporations with lenient (and stable) corporate laws. It actually might be good to transfer Delaware’s role to the federal government, although Delaware would be devastated by this.
Other topic: This seems not to be “conservative.”
I mean, isn’t this something we would expect individual states to do, and it’s just dealing with organizations whose size and reach make it more appropriate for the federal government to deal with them?
This seems right to me, although I haven’t seen the legislation. No links were provided, and I don’t want to look into it further at the moment, but corporations receive their charter from states. Most large corporations are chartered in Delaware, which exists in part to provide corporations with lenient (and stable) corporate laws. It actually might be good to transfer Delaware’s role to the federal government, although Delaware would be devastated by this.
Other topic: This seems not to be “conservative.”
I want my government-produced iPod!!!
tax breaks + subsidies + trade protection/enhancement + state sanctioned monopoly (IP) + lax anti-trust oversight + monetary policy tilted toward appeasing Wall Street = socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
The government might as well have built a factory and produced them directly, and cut out the middlemen.
I want my government-produced iPod!!!
tax breaks + subsidies + trade protection/enhancement + state sanctioned monopoly (IP) + lax anti-trust oversight + monetary policy tilted toward appeasing Wall Street = socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
The government might as well have built a factory and produced them directly, and cut out the middlemen.
Is it a new regulation? I mean, isn’t this something we would expect individual states to do, and it’s just dealing with organizations whose size and reach make it more appropriate for the federal government to deal with them?
There may be a couple of states which require this of their corporations. But I’m willing to bet (though too lazy to check) that Delaware isn’t one of them. (For the non-Americans here, most big US corporations are actually incorporated in Delaware, regardless of where their actual operations are. Because its requirements are exceptionally business-friendly.) So yeah, it would be a new requirement.
Is it a new regulation? I mean, isn’t this something we would expect individual states to do, and it’s just dealing with organizations whose size and reach make it more appropriate for the federal government to deal with them?
There may be a couple of states which require this of their corporations. But I’m willing to bet (though too lazy to check) that Delaware isn’t one of them. (For the non-Americans here, most big US corporations are actually incorporated in Delaware, regardless of where their actual operations are. Because its requirements are exceptionally business-friendly.) So yeah, it would be a new requirement.
How is this “taking over the means of production”?
It’s not.
How is this “taking over the means of production”?
It’s not.
This seems not to be “conservative.”
Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.
As long as the POTUS is a (R).
This seems not to be “conservative.”
Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.
As long as the POTUS is a (R).
Delaware is business friendly, but as sapient said it is the stable interpretation of law that is attractive. Channelling my bus law 101, most states copy Delaware law, but do not have the jurists who interpret the laws uniformly.
Which is a reasonable expectation for everyone. Corporations are just fortunate enough to be able to shop around for the venue they want.
Delaware is business friendly, but as sapient said it is the stable interpretation of law that is attractive. Channelling my bus law 101, most states copy Delaware law, but do not have the jurists who interpret the laws uniformly.
Which is a reasonable expectation for everyone. Corporations are just fortunate enough to be able to shop around for the venue they want.
Taking over the means of production, you say?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/boston-dynamics-atlas-robot-can-now-do-parkour-so-dont-bother-running-away-2018-10-11?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I’d say we’re going to be overtaken by the means of production, as if we haven’t been all along.
Taking over the means of production, you say?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/boston-dynamics-atlas-robot-can-now-do-parkour-so-dont-bother-running-away-2018-10-11?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I’d say we’re going to be overtaken by the means of production, as if we haven’t been all along.
I’m glad I’m old.
I’m glad I’m old.
shoes for industry!
Hey, read this.
This public service message brought to you by an old wobblie.
shoes for industry!
Hey, read this.
This public service message brought to you by an old wobblie.
Not voting to confirm Kavanaugh might have been a start….
https://www.amazon.com/Them-Hate-Each-Other-Heal/dp/1250193680
Not voting to confirm Kavanaugh might have been a start….
https://www.amazon.com/Them-Hate-Each-Other-Heal/dp/1250193680
Taking over the blue meanies of production:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/two-az-gopers-posed-communist-damaging-contribution
There’s your culprits, Marty.
Bullshit.
Taking over the blue meanies of production:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/two-az-gopers-posed-communist-damaging-contribution
There’s your culprits, Marty.
Bullshit.
Blasey Ford and her family are under violent siege at the hands of Republican Party cadres, expressly summoned by elected Republican murderers to intimidate her:
https://www.google.com/search?q=blasey+ford+can%27t+come+outside&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS774US774&oq=blasey+ford+can%27t+come+outside&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.14881j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Feinstein may be shot in the head soon, because you capture one guy but the stinking republican militias, armed by the terrorist NRA, are setting up on every grassy knoll in America:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/california-man-charged-feinstein-threat
mp ordered the murder and dismemberment of journalist Khashoggi.
mp ordered the murder and dismemberment of journalist Khashoggi.
mp ordered the murder and dismemberment of journalist Khashoggi.
mp ordered the murder and dismemberment of journalist Khashoggi.
ALL republicans were willing co-conspirators in the murder, though some of the vermin preferred an acid bath for the corpse rather than dismemberment, citing the risk and expense, always budget-conscious they are, of carrying the body parts from the Embassy to the van. And what do we do with the chain saw?
What is required in America and throughout the world when it comes to the monsters of the conservative movement, are the savage means of REDUCTION.
Brazil, Hungary, Romania, the Philippines, Moscow, Saudi Arabia, will be the proving grounds for the savage means of worldwide conservative Reduction.
Norwegian murderer Anders Behring Breivik made a list of demands during his nationalist bloodletting.
That list is now the boilerplate agenda of the fucking vermin conservative movement throughout the world.
mp asked his towelboy and political strategist at Mar-a-Lago during the 2016 campaign: “Hey kid, …. what’s yer name? …. I’m down to two choices for my in-house immigration Czar, Anders Breivik, doing very very good work over there in one of those Aryan countries, and this up and coming American conservative and glue-eater, Stephen Miller I’ve had my eye on. What do ya think, Einstein? While you are thinking, now refold all of those towels so my monogram is clearly visible, ya putz. You know what that stitching cost me?”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/teacher-glue-eating-habit-miller-suspended
I guess teachers no longer have First Amendment rights in pig fuck conservative America. If she’d refused to decorate a cake for the high school Glee Club pageant, she’d be a fucking FOX martyr, amirite?
Blasey Ford and her family are under violent siege at the hands of Republican Party cadres, expressly summoned by elected Republican murderers to intimidate her:
https://www.google.com/search?q=blasey+ford+can%27t+come+outside&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS774US774&oq=blasey+ford+can%27t+come+outside&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.14881j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Feinstein may be shot in the head soon, because you capture one guy but the stinking republican militias, armed by the terrorist NRA, are setting up on every grassy knoll in America:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/california-man-charged-feinstein-threat
mp ordered the murder and dismemberment of journalist Khashoggi.
mp ordered the murder and dismemberment of journalist Khashoggi.
mp ordered the murder and dismemberment of journalist Khashoggi.
mp ordered the murder and dismemberment of journalist Khashoggi.
ALL republicans were willing co-conspirators in the murder, though some of the vermin preferred an acid bath for the corpse rather than dismemberment, citing the risk and expense, always budget-conscious they are, of carrying the body parts from the Embassy to the van. And what do we do with the chain saw?
What is required in America and throughout the world when it comes to the monsters of the conservative movement, are the savage means of REDUCTION.
Brazil, Hungary, Romania, the Philippines, Moscow, Saudi Arabia, will be the proving grounds for the savage means of worldwide conservative Reduction.
Norwegian murderer Anders Behring Breivik made a list of demands during his nationalist bloodletting.
That list is now the boilerplate agenda of the fucking vermin conservative movement throughout the world.
mp asked his towelboy and political strategist at Mar-a-Lago during the 2016 campaign: “Hey kid, …. what’s yer name? …. I’m down to two choices for my in-house immigration Czar, Anders Breivik, doing very very good work over there in one of those Aryan countries, and this up and coming American conservative and glue-eater, Stephen Miller I’ve had my eye on. What do ya think, Einstein? While you are thinking, now refold all of those towels so my monogram is clearly visible, ya putz. You know what that stitching cost me?”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/teacher-glue-eating-habit-miller-suspended
I guess teachers no longer have First Amendment rights in pig fuck conservative America. If she’d refused to decorate a cake for the high school Glee Club pageant, she’d be a fucking FOX martyr, amirite?
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/nevertrump-becomes-trump-endless-series
Haw, Haw, haw!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KctqZVYgmO4
Haw, Haw, haw!
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/nevertrump-becomes-trump-endless-series
Haw, Haw, haw!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KctqZVYgmO4
Haw, Haw, haw!
sapient: thanks for the lengthy reply.
Maybe you should stop sulking and defend your “conservative” values.
Was I sulking? Didn’t think so.
Your comment doesn’t take into account Russian interference or voter suppression, but you’re absolutely right about the numbers.
Acknowledged. I haven’t seen anything definitive on either, but I didn’t take that into account.
As to your other questions, too many to go into now with my time restraints. I see where your frustration comes from, I think, in the tenor of your comments. That isn’t lost on me. Yes, a lot of things trouble me, on both sides of the equation. I question. I don’t vote party line just because (interesting D running for congress where I am). My personal philosophy trends conservative in many areas, but not all. And I don’t do enough and admire those, like you, that get out there for what you believe, even if I don’t necessarily agree with your beliefs.
And yes, another data-free comment. I’ll try to do better in the future (although I did read a Kevin Drum factoid recently on voter suppression in Wisconsin, does that count?)
sapient: thanks for the lengthy reply.
Maybe you should stop sulking and defend your “conservative” values.
Was I sulking? Didn’t think so.
Your comment doesn’t take into account Russian interference or voter suppression, but you’re absolutely right about the numbers.
Acknowledged. I haven’t seen anything definitive on either, but I didn’t take that into account.
As to your other questions, too many to go into now with my time restraints. I see where your frustration comes from, I think, in the tenor of your comments. That isn’t lost on me. Yes, a lot of things trouble me, on both sides of the equation. I question. I don’t vote party line just because (interesting D running for congress where I am). My personal philosophy trends conservative in many areas, but not all. And I don’t do enough and admire those, like you, that get out there for what you believe, even if I don’t necessarily agree with your beliefs.
And yes, another data-free comment. I’ll try to do better in the future (although I did read a Kevin Drum factoid recently on voter suppression in Wisconsin, does that count?)
Thanks, bc. I appreciate your thoughtful and gracious reply. No data necessary.
Thanks, bc. I appreciate your thoughtful and gracious reply. No data necessary.
Please go back to bickering. All this niceness makes me want to puke. ;^)
Please go back to bickering. All this niceness makes me want to puke. ;^)
I’m pretty sure puking violates the Posting Rules. (And if it doesn’t, maybe we need an updatee.) 😉
I’m pretty sure puking violates the Posting Rules. (And if it doesn’t, maybe we need an updatee.) 😉
If folks need to be persuaded that flipping Congress in November is essential, please read this article about a five-year-old refugee:
The longer we let this go on, the more it becomes a part of our national identity. It has to stop.
If folks need to be persuaded that flipping Congress in November is essential, please read this article about a five-year-old refugee:
The longer we let this go on, the more it becomes a part of our national identity. It has to stop.
Meanwhile, back at US politics, we have this: North Dakota soybean farmers, caught in the trade war, watch the season run out on their crop
Money quote
A glimmer of hope, perhaps, for Senator Heitkamp’s reelection effort.
Meanwhile, back at US politics, we have this: North Dakota soybean farmers, caught in the trade war, watch the season run out on their crop
Money quote
A glimmer of hope, perhaps, for Senator Heitkamp’s reelection effort.
What are they gonna do, vote for a Democrat? Lol.
What are they gonna do, vote for a Democrat? Lol.
Well she has been elected there before…
Well she has been elected there before…
What Nigel said.
What Nigel said.
Well she has been elected there before…
Yes, but that was before this happened.
Well she has been elected there before…
Yes, but that was before this happened.