by russell
After 9/11, there was a lot of talk about the Constitution "not being a suicide pact". I agree with that, although probably not in the spirit with which that idea was presented at the time.
The fundamental premise of American governance is self-government, by the people, in a republican form. "In a republican form" here meaning, not purely democratic, but democratic with guardrails – mutually agreed upon limits to what governments can and cannot do.
So far so good.
Then, there are details. Lots and lots of details. In fact, I'd say that most of the text of the Constitution addresses those details. And, most of those details were arrived at through days – months and years, really – of negotiation. Negotiation between states that had slave economies, and those that were more mercantile. Negotiation between states that were very large, and those that were not large at all. Negotiations between places with different histories, different economies, different cultural traditions, different interests.
They'd tried the experiment of a very loose confederation, with a very minimal federal government. That, by common consent, was a failure. So they tried something a much stronger, if still limited, federal government.
And here we are. With our creaky, best-available-compromise-given-the-circumstances-230-years-ago rule book.
Is it still working? Or have the institutions we began with become too played out, too over-used and abused, to deal with the circumstances we live with now?
It's not the same world it was in 1789. Time for a reset?
I will add that a "reset" would be as likely to result in a no-longer-United States. If that's so, are we actually united? If not, why not a reset?
It seems to me that anyone arguing for a “reset” needs to have in hand an outline for how “something better” might work. Subject to negotiations on the details, of course. But at least laying out the high points.
But overall, is it another republic, just with repositioned basic guardrails? Or is it a different type of structure altogether? Can you point to a place where it has been tried, even if only on a small scale? What are its known weak points?
Just arguing we need something different, with nothing to propose instead, is maybe a fun way to while away an evening. But it’s not a step towards a change.
It seems to me that anyone arguing for a “reset” needs to have in hand an outline for how “something better” might work. Subject to negotiations on the details, of course. But at least laying out the high points.
But overall, is it another republic, just with repositioned basic guardrails? Or is it a different type of structure altogether? Can you point to a place where it has been tried, even if only on a small scale? What are its known weak points?
Just arguing we need something different, with nothing to propose instead, is maybe a fun way to while away an evening. But it’s not a step towards a change.
Steps toward change often begin with whiling away evenings. Conversation stimulates the imagination.
Too late for me tonight, but I will make a more substantive reply tomorrow.
Steps toward change often begin with whiling away evenings. Conversation stimulates the imagination.
Too late for me tonight, but I will make a more substantive reply tomorrow.
(All #s from Wikipedia.)
The 1790 census counted 3,939,214 people in the US (this did not include Native Americans). So, that’s roughly the population of the country when George Washington was elected for the first time.
It’s also roughly the current population of Oklahoma (the 28th most populous state).
It’s less than 1.2 times the current combined population of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
To get a little closer, it’s barely more than the current combined population of Maine, NH, and RI.
It’s no wonder the campaign for the presidency barely ever stops. I would add this unwieldiness to some of the other factors the Levinson piece mentions as contributing to our dysfunctionality.
*****
As for the “reset” question — I think we are seeing a “reset” in progress, which is not consensual or democratic, and for which I’m afraid no one knows where the brakes are, toward an implicit abandonment of the separation of powers, and away from much more than a pretense at democracy, at least no more pretense than they have in places like Russia and China. If SFJ-fka-Clickbait is re-elected, that will be “that’s all she wrote” in that department. At least for my lifetime.
I think we desperately need a reset, but I fear it would be a nightmare that would include significant bloodshed and destruction. We are so divided that it’s hard to imagine a path that would get us to where we could even agree to talk about talking about a divorce, much less a new framework for staying in one piece.
*****
I see that while I’ve been writing, wj has said this: Just arguing we need something different, with nothing to propose instead, is maybe a fun way to while away an evening. But it’s not a step towards a change.
Ummmmmm…..are you suggesting that all the other things that get written here do constitute practical steps toward change? We must be reading wildly different versions of the blog.
(All #s from Wikipedia.)
The 1790 census counted 3,939,214 people in the US (this did not include Native Americans). So, that’s roughly the population of the country when George Washington was elected for the first time.
It’s also roughly the current population of Oklahoma (the 28th most populous state).
It’s less than 1.2 times the current combined population of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
To get a little closer, it’s barely more than the current combined population of Maine, NH, and RI.
It’s no wonder the campaign for the presidency barely ever stops. I would add this unwieldiness to some of the other factors the Levinson piece mentions as contributing to our dysfunctionality.
*****
As for the “reset” question — I think we are seeing a “reset” in progress, which is not consensual or democratic, and for which I’m afraid no one knows where the brakes are, toward an implicit abandonment of the separation of powers, and away from much more than a pretense at democracy, at least no more pretense than they have in places like Russia and China. If SFJ-fka-Clickbait is re-elected, that will be “that’s all she wrote” in that department. At least for my lifetime.
I think we desperately need a reset, but I fear it would be a nightmare that would include significant bloodshed and destruction. We are so divided that it’s hard to imagine a path that would get us to where we could even agree to talk about talking about a divorce, much less a new framework for staying in one piece.
*****
I see that while I’ve been writing, wj has said this: Just arguing we need something different, with nothing to propose instead, is maybe a fun way to while away an evening. But it’s not a step towards a change.
Ummmmmm…..are you suggesting that all the other things that get written here do constitute practical steps toward change? We must be reading wildly different versions of the blog.
First, what wj said.
A reset will only be as good as the people resetting, and the same people who have power now would be doing that work. Our country has the tools to be as good as the best of us if we insist on it in strong enough numbers. If enough of us don’t step up, we have no chance of making it better, reset or no.
If you, russell, are talking about dissolving the United States, that might happen. It might make people in Massachusetts or California feel that their values were better represented. It’s not going to help the disenfranchised people in Georgia. It’s not going to happen peacefully. And it’s not going to prevent disease from crossing borders. Look anywhere else in the world at how well provincialism works out. The smaller the country, the nastier the wars.
I would, instead, like to see people of good will get with the program, participate to make sure that Democrats remain a reasonable and vibrant party whose members are dedicated to institutional integrity and public service, vote for the Democrat, help Democrats take and keep the Senate, reform the courts, and keep that going for a couple of decades with tweaks to the Constitution as needed. That would work. It involves longterm discipline, and wholehearted solidarity until we have a habitual lock on electing people who are, at minimum, decent. It involves citizenship.
Anybody who thinks there’s a better alternative should set it out in detail. Anyone who thinks that any other plan would require less work, or achieve better results, should show us how it can be done. I think we should keep in mind that most of the major problems that we face are global, and that much of the philosophical divide in our country is urban versus rural, not regional.
First, what wj said.
A reset will only be as good as the people resetting, and the same people who have power now would be doing that work. Our country has the tools to be as good as the best of us if we insist on it in strong enough numbers. If enough of us don’t step up, we have no chance of making it better, reset or no.
If you, russell, are talking about dissolving the United States, that might happen. It might make people in Massachusetts or California feel that their values were better represented. It’s not going to help the disenfranchised people in Georgia. It’s not going to happen peacefully. And it’s not going to prevent disease from crossing borders. Look anywhere else in the world at how well provincialism works out. The smaller the country, the nastier the wars.
I would, instead, like to see people of good will get with the program, participate to make sure that Democrats remain a reasonable and vibrant party whose members are dedicated to institutional integrity and public service, vote for the Democrat, help Democrats take and keep the Senate, reform the courts, and keep that going for a couple of decades with tweaks to the Constitution as needed. That would work. It involves longterm discipline, and wholehearted solidarity until we have a habitual lock on electing people who are, at minimum, decent. It involves citizenship.
Anybody who thinks there’s a better alternative should set it out in detail. Anyone who thinks that any other plan would require less work, or achieve better results, should show us how it can be done. I think we should keep in mind that most of the major problems that we face are global, and that much of the philosophical divide in our country is urban versus rural, not regional.
I think you have to start with redefining capitalism. For acceptance you need to call it that, with russells view of worker ownership and build out an inclusive infrastructure on the grounding.
I think you have to start with redefining capitalism. For acceptance you need to call it that, with russells view of worker ownership and build out an inclusive infrastructure on the grounding.
“that grounding”. The challenge is creating a vision of the compact that rewards risk while also rewarding effort.
“that grounding”. The challenge is creating a vision of the compact that rewards risk while also rewarding effort.
I’m worried too that the election in November won’t eject Putin’s pretender to the presidency. But if the American people are smart enough to do a “reset” that benefits the people of this country, they’re certainly smart enough to elect Biden over Trump.
People here complained incessantly about Obama. I was happy with Obama. I wasn’t happy with every little problem that the country had, nor was I happy with every little word spoken by our President. But the government functioned in favor of the people (probably someone can point to a screw-up, so go right ahead). But we didn’t need a reset. We needed to keep that going instead of one step forward, two steps back, like we have done during my entire lifetime because only Republicans support their President, and Democrats do nothing but criticize. Let’s elect a decent person, support that person, and keep it going. That would be so much easier than a “reset” of some kind which would probably mean violent civil war with an ugly outcome. I really hope that we’re not already too far down that path.
I’m worried too that the election in November won’t eject Putin’s pretender to the presidency. But if the American people are smart enough to do a “reset” that benefits the people of this country, they’re certainly smart enough to elect Biden over Trump.
People here complained incessantly about Obama. I was happy with Obama. I wasn’t happy with every little problem that the country had, nor was I happy with every little word spoken by our President. But the government functioned in favor of the people (probably someone can point to a screw-up, so go right ahead). But we didn’t need a reset. We needed to keep that going instead of one step forward, two steps back, like we have done during my entire lifetime because only Republicans support their President, and Democrats do nothing but criticize. Let’s elect a decent person, support that person, and keep it going. That would be so much easier than a “reset” of some kind which would probably mean violent civil war with an ugly outcome. I really hope that we’re not already too far down that path.
Gigantic utopian procedural type changes are usually a waste of time. Fine for a blog discussion topic, of course. But this is a rare occasion where I agree to a limited degree with sapient and wj.
Plus if we had another constitutional convention we’d probably bring back slavery or some dumb shite. Maybe an electoral college where every state is equal or gets votes according to land mass.
If you want gigantic changes, go straight for the policies you want to see.
Gigantic utopian procedural type changes are usually a waste of time. Fine for a blog discussion topic, of course. But this is a rare occasion where I agree to a limited degree with sapient and wj.
Plus if we had another constitutional convention we’d probably bring back slavery or some dumb shite. Maybe an electoral college where every state is equal or gets votes according to land mass.
If you want gigantic changes, go straight for the policies you want to see.
Also, if it is a question of splitting the red and the blue, there is a lot of red and blue in every state afaik. Another point where I agree with sapient when this has come up before.
Also, if it is a question of splitting the red and the blue, there is a lot of red and blue in every state afaik. Another point where I agree with sapient when this has come up before.
Thinking of dumb shite that AstroTurf Republican protestors might propose
State representation in electoral college is to be to proportional to ( number of assault rifles purchased per year per capita) *times Gini coefficient. times percentage of Ayn Rand fans
Though to be fair, Gini must be pretty high in liberal bastions like nyc. It is the assault rifle selling that would bring it down.
Thinking of dumb shite that AstroTurf Republican protestors might propose
State representation in electoral college is to be to proportional to ( number of assault rifles purchased per year per capita) *times Gini coefficient. times percentage of Ayn Rand fans
Though to be fair, Gini must be pretty high in liberal bastions like nyc. It is the assault rifle selling that would bring it down.
( number of assault rifles purchased per year per capita)
Brilliant! If corporations can be people, why not assault rifles? The gun manufacturers will love it! A new variation on an old concept: the arms race.
( number of assault rifles purchased per year per capita)
Brilliant! If corporations can be people, why not assault rifles? The gun manufacturers will love it! A new variation on an old concept: the arms race.
number of assault rifles purchased per year per capita
I think this would be great. My wife and I can buy one gun, and sell it back and forth daily. Hourly even. Run our vote weight way up! And if we hold the price down,** we don’t even create significant taxable income. Later, we can go to computer-based trading, and do multiple sales per second.
** For some reason, I’m put in mind of those trading stamps of my youth. The face said “retail value: 1 mil”. Though I expect we could bring that down.
number of assault rifles purchased per year per capita
I think this would be great. My wife and I can buy one gun, and sell it back and forth daily. Hourly even. Run our vote weight way up! And if we hold the price down,** we don’t even create significant taxable income. Later, we can go to computer-based trading, and do multiple sales per second.
** For some reason, I’m put in mind of those trading stamps of my youth. The face said “retail value: 1 mil”. Though I expect we could bring that down.
“that grounding”. The challenge is creating a vision of the compact that rewards risk while also rewarding effort.
The problem is the current paradigm of this compact subsidizes “risk” (see lower tax rate for capital gains-just one example of many), while actually punishing effort (cf. income inequality, squashing unions via terrible NLRB rulings–again, just two of many). The so-called “effort” it takes to create a tax dodging LLC is nothing compared to the risk that the person cleaning the office toilet every night faces.
There is a huge disconnect there.
“that grounding”. The challenge is creating a vision of the compact that rewards risk while also rewarding effort.
The problem is the current paradigm of this compact subsidizes “risk” (see lower tax rate for capital gains-just one example of many), while actually punishing effort (cf. income inequality, squashing unions via terrible NLRB rulings–again, just two of many). The so-called “effort” it takes to create a tax dodging LLC is nothing compared to the risk that the person cleaning the office toilet every night faces.
There is a huge disconnect there.
When Ted Cruz takes a cane to Chuck Schumer on the floor of the Senate, then we shall realize the shit is about to hit the fan.
When Ted Cruz takes a cane to Chuck Schumer on the floor of the Senate, then we shall realize the shit is about to hit the fan.
The challenge is creating a vision of the compact that rewards risk while also rewarding effort.
Except, we don’t need to exercise imagination to come up with one. We’ve got one available (within living memory, even), and home-grown as well (for those who get concerned about that): the way we ran market capitalism for a couple decades after WW II.
Was it a perfect economic system? Not even close. Was it better (for however you define the term) than what we see today? I’d certainly say so.
Rewards for hard work? Check. Better correlation than today, anyway.
Rewards for innovation? Check. At least, we seem to have done a fair amount of it, so apparently adequate incentives.
Income inequality present, but moderate? Check.
General (i.e. across the population) opportunity for economic/social mobility? Check.
I expect it will take some work to lay out the legal, especially tax, changes required to recreate those features. And there may be other kinds of changes needed as well.** Especially because we can doubtless think of some tweeks we would like — think of non-discrimination laws that we don’t want to lose. But at least we start out knowning it can be done because we did it before.
** To take a totally arbitrary example, we might discover that the only effective way to generate the required worldview adjustments is to reinstitute the draft. Across both genders. And make it universal — maybe with an option for delay, paid for by longer service. Force everybody to rub elbows, with equivalent (local) status, for a couple of years. Just to drive home the lesson that those other people, who you never encounteted before at home, are real people, too.
The challenge is creating a vision of the compact that rewards risk while also rewarding effort.
Except, we don’t need to exercise imagination to come up with one. We’ve got one available (within living memory, even), and home-grown as well (for those who get concerned about that): the way we ran market capitalism for a couple decades after WW II.
Was it a perfect economic system? Not even close. Was it better (for however you define the term) than what we see today? I’d certainly say so.
Rewards for hard work? Check. Better correlation than today, anyway.
Rewards for innovation? Check. At least, we seem to have done a fair amount of it, so apparently adequate incentives.
Income inequality present, but moderate? Check.
General (i.e. across the population) opportunity for economic/social mobility? Check.
I expect it will take some work to lay out the legal, especially tax, changes required to recreate those features. And there may be other kinds of changes needed as well.** Especially because we can doubtless think of some tweeks we would like — think of non-discrimination laws that we don’t want to lose. But at least we start out knowning it can be done because we did it before.
** To take a totally arbitrary example, we might discover that the only effective way to generate the required worldview adjustments is to reinstitute the draft. Across both genders. And make it universal — maybe with an option for delay, paid for by longer service. Force everybody to rub elbows, with equivalent (local) status, for a couple of years. Just to drive home the lesson that those other people, who you never encounteted before at home, are real people, too.
wj, none of that is different than the ststem we have now. The levers to try and maintain it just hadn’t been pulled. You want to go back to a system that had failed by 1977.
wj, none of that is different than the ststem we have now. The levers to try and maintain it just hadn’t been pulled. You want to go back to a system that had failed by 1977.
The things I find problematic mostly are stuff like the Electoral College and the Senate. Legacies of states being jealous of their own autonomy, and wanting to be represented as a political entity – i.e., the state per se, not the people in the state – in federal governance.
We have never made the transition from being a nation of states, to being a nation of people. It gets in the way.
Some would say that is by intent – it’s meant to get in the way. I agree. And I disagree that that serves a useful function anymore.
The counter-argument is that states serve as a useful proxy for certain interests or demographics, basically (at this point) urban vs rural. Without the states as an actor at the federal level, rural folks’ interests would be overrun by those of city or suburban folk.
That’s a reasonable concern, but I’m not sure that state boundaries are an accurate or effective proxy for those interests.
NYC ain’t Cobleskill. For example.
I’d also like to see a uniform national standard for who can vote, defined in the Constitution. That standard should be every adult American citizen, full stop.
And I would like a crisp bright line between natural and purely legal persons defined in the Constitution, with the rights pertaining to persons limited to the natural kind. And with participation in political institutions – including financial contributions – limited to the natural kind.
I’d like to see American governance returned to, or more likely achieving for the first time, Lincoln’s ideal – of, by, and for the people.
It ain’t that now.
I understand and share everyone’s concern about the possibilities for violence and dissolution. Seems to me those exist anyway, with or without considering structural changes. Seems to me the real possibilty of dissolution and violence point out the need for change, rather than the opposite.
Also, FWIW, I liked Obama, too. Most folks did, see also his popular and electoral margins. Obama as POTUS has and had little to do with the questions raised here.
I think you have to start with redefining capitalism
?????
Not really where I was going with this, but curious to know what you’re thinking here.
Back to bed for me, now. G’night all.
The things I find problematic mostly are stuff like the Electoral College and the Senate. Legacies of states being jealous of their own autonomy, and wanting to be represented as a political entity – i.e., the state per se, not the people in the state – in federal governance.
We have never made the transition from being a nation of states, to being a nation of people. It gets in the way.
Some would say that is by intent – it’s meant to get in the way. I agree. And I disagree that that serves a useful function anymore.
The counter-argument is that states serve as a useful proxy for certain interests or demographics, basically (at this point) urban vs rural. Without the states as an actor at the federal level, rural folks’ interests would be overrun by those of city or suburban folk.
That’s a reasonable concern, but I’m not sure that state boundaries are an accurate or effective proxy for those interests.
NYC ain’t Cobleskill. For example.
I’d also like to see a uniform national standard for who can vote, defined in the Constitution. That standard should be every adult American citizen, full stop.
And I would like a crisp bright line between natural and purely legal persons defined in the Constitution, with the rights pertaining to persons limited to the natural kind. And with participation in political institutions – including financial contributions – limited to the natural kind.
I’d like to see American governance returned to, or more likely achieving for the first time, Lincoln’s ideal – of, by, and for the people.
It ain’t that now.
I understand and share everyone’s concern about the possibilities for violence and dissolution. Seems to me those exist anyway, with or without considering structural changes. Seems to me the real possibilty of dissolution and violence point out the need for change, rather than the opposite.
Also, FWIW, I liked Obama, too. Most folks did, see also his popular and electoral margins. Obama as POTUS has and had little to do with the questions raised here.
I think you have to start with redefining capitalism
?????
Not really where I was going with this, but curious to know what you’re thinking here.
Back to bed for me, now. G’night all.
I agree with all of what you said at 5:09, russell. (What you doin up that early?)
What’s standing in the way of our achieving an improved version of the system we have now is the 39%. We have to hope either to convert them, to infiltrate their states, or to hope demographics are the cure. I have little hope for the first option. The second would be possible, but would require a movement. The third seems too slow to me.
I agree with all of what you said at 5:09, russell. (What you doin up that early?)
What’s standing in the way of our achieving an improved version of the system we have now is the 39%. We have to hope either to convert them, to infiltrate their states, or to hope demographics are the cure. I have little hope for the first option. The second would be possible, but would require a movement. The third seems too slow to me.
I personally am pessimistic about the future of the country. I do not think it can go on as it is going. I agree with Levinson about the flaws in the Constitution, and I don’t think they can be cured.
Nor do I think the divides in thinking can be papered over. The gap is too large and too absolute.
In short, I think the country is going to break up, and the best thing is to try to have it happen in a peaceful, orderly way.
If that’s possible.
I personally am pessimistic about the future of the country. I do not think it can go on as it is going. I agree with Levinson about the flaws in the Constitution, and I don’t think they can be cured.
Nor do I think the divides in thinking can be papered over. The gap is too large and too absolute.
In short, I think the country is going to break up, and the best thing is to try to have it happen in a peaceful, orderly way.
If that’s possible.
If not, why not a reset?
because trillions upon trillions of dollars of wealth is dependent on the US as it currently exists. it’s dependent on this law being in just the right amount of opposition to this one, on this agency having exactly this amount of leverage, on the price supports provided by this department, on the rules and regulations that define the market for this product, etc. x10,000,000,000,000.
If not, why not a reset?
because trillions upon trillions of dollars of wealth is dependent on the US as it currently exists. it’s dependent on this law being in just the right amount of opposition to this one, on this agency having exactly this amount of leverage, on the price supports provided by this department, on the rules and regulations that define the market for this product, etc. x10,000,000,000,000.
byomtov, I’m pessimistic too. I’m extremely worried about what will happen in November, and shortly thereafter.
There is a strong divide, but it’s between reason and lies, democracy and fascism. We can’t give it to them; we have to win. Fascism has to be eradicated. Period. There’s room for discussion about “government’s role”. There is no room for discussion about truth versus lies.
Also, thanks, Donald, for acknowledging our agreements.
byomtov, I’m pessimistic too. I’m extremely worried about what will happen in November, and shortly thereafter.
There is a strong divide, but it’s between reason and lies, democracy and fascism. We can’t give it to them; we have to win. Fascism has to be eradicated. Period. There’s room for discussion about “government’s role”. There is no room for discussion about truth versus lies.
Also, thanks, Donald, for acknowledging our agreements.
I like Donald’s formulation of “Gigantic utopian procedural type changes”. While it is not conscious, I’m sure a reason why I am living overseas is that I really want to say not my monkeys, not my circus. Of course, the irony is that that doesn’t matter, I still get pushed out into the center ring to stick my head in the lion’s mouth. Oh well.
My own take is that the changes are inevitable, but we’ll get some story to suggest that we have some agency in the whole thing, which we don’t. All the other nations of Europe couldn’t keep their way of organizing their militaries after Napoleon started the whole levy system. Hunter gatherers couldn’t cope with the agrian cultures. Never mind that the story of divine right theory is bullshit every which way you look at it, it gave a good enough story (and I can’t resist a Monty Python quote, after Arthur explains how he was chosen by the Lady of the Lake, the peasant replies ” Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!”)
It seems inevitable that a system that looks more like Asian countries is going to happen, with more surveillance and monitoring, more social pressure, coopted by business as a way to ‘monetize’ things. We might be able to spin a fun story (no, I wanted twitter to tell me how to behave), but we are going to get to the same place.
I like Donald’s formulation of “Gigantic utopian procedural type changes”. While it is not conscious, I’m sure a reason why I am living overseas is that I really want to say not my monkeys, not my circus. Of course, the irony is that that doesn’t matter, I still get pushed out into the center ring to stick my head in the lion’s mouth. Oh well.
My own take is that the changes are inevitable, but we’ll get some story to suggest that we have some agency in the whole thing, which we don’t. All the other nations of Europe couldn’t keep their way of organizing their militaries after Napoleon started the whole levy system. Hunter gatherers couldn’t cope with the agrian cultures. Never mind that the story of divine right theory is bullshit every which way you look at it, it gave a good enough story (and I can’t resist a Monty Python quote, after Arthur explains how he was chosen by the Lady of the Lake, the peasant replies ” Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!”)
It seems inevitable that a system that looks more like Asian countries is going to happen, with more surveillance and monitoring, more social pressure, coopted by business as a way to ‘monetize’ things. We might be able to spin a fun story (no, I wanted twitter to tell me how to behave), but we are going to get to the same place.
“ My wife and I can buy one gun, and sell it back and forth daily. Hourly even. Run our vote weight way up! “
Now you are just trying to game the system. The original intent of the second constitution is to give power to the hands of Real Americans.
On the pessimism here, I don’t share it in the same form. The conservatives I know in real life aren’t interested in splitting the country. Plus we always had extremes. The difference in the past was that there were liberals and conservatives in both parties. And just three or four TV networks and one or two local newspapers. Now for better or worse it is easier to compartmentalize if you are someone who is into politics.
But we all live in the same areas. The electoral college gives the illusion otherwise, but all states are varying shades of purple.
But there is no reason why we can’t all decline together as a nation.
“ My wife and I can buy one gun, and sell it back and forth daily. Hourly even. Run our vote weight way up! “
Now you are just trying to game the system. The original intent of the second constitution is to give power to the hands of Real Americans.
On the pessimism here, I don’t share it in the same form. The conservatives I know in real life aren’t interested in splitting the country. Plus we always had extremes. The difference in the past was that there were liberals and conservatives in both parties. And just three or four TV networks and one or two local newspapers. Now for better or worse it is easier to compartmentalize if you are someone who is into politics.
But we all live in the same areas. The electoral college gives the illusion otherwise, but all states are varying shades of purple.
But there is no reason why we can’t all decline together as a nation.
To be clear, I am not interested in splitting the country. It’s hard for me to imagine how, exactly, that would work. Or not even exactly – how, approximately and vaguely, that would work.
I’m happy to “go straight for the policies (I) want to see”, see my 5:09.
What we have now is a polarized electorate, reflected in a polarized Congress that is incapable of getting useful, necessary things done. Or, maybe not incapable, but profoundly dysfunctional and inefficient. And we have a highly politicized SCOTUS and federal judiciary. And an incompetent and toxic executive.
So, for example, to the degree that something like this is so:
The electoral college gives the illusion otherwise, but all states are varying shades of purple.
Then the institution that distorts the composition of the people, and distorts their intent and will – in this case the EC – should go.
Governance at the federal level is not working. Unless your idea of what “working” looks like is to abdicate its responsibility and stand down from any form of directive policy-making. It’s been captured by people with a lot of freaking money, no small number of whom aren’t even Americans, and no small number of whom aren’t even natural human beings.
But there is no reason why we can’t all decline together as a nation.
Also no reason that we have to.
To be clear, I am not interested in splitting the country. It’s hard for me to imagine how, exactly, that would work. Or not even exactly – how, approximately and vaguely, that would work.
I’m happy to “go straight for the policies (I) want to see”, see my 5:09.
What we have now is a polarized electorate, reflected in a polarized Congress that is incapable of getting useful, necessary things done. Or, maybe not incapable, but profoundly dysfunctional and inefficient. And we have a highly politicized SCOTUS and federal judiciary. And an incompetent and toxic executive.
So, for example, to the degree that something like this is so:
The electoral college gives the illusion otherwise, but all states are varying shades of purple.
Then the institution that distorts the composition of the people, and distorts their intent and will – in this case the EC – should go.
Governance at the federal level is not working. Unless your idea of what “working” looks like is to abdicate its responsibility and stand down from any form of directive policy-making. It’s been captured by people with a lot of freaking money, no small number of whom aren’t even Americans, and no small number of whom aren’t even natural human beings.
But there is no reason why we can’t all decline together as a nation.
Also no reason that we have to.
none of that is different than the ststem we have now. The levers to try and maintain it just hadn’t been pulled.
Marty, the problem with the system is that it requires manual interventions to pull the levers. Which, as you note, have been thin on the ground for a while now. To my mind, a system ought to function without needing major or frequent interventions in order to work right.
I’d also note that by 1977 the (mostly libertarian) efforts to break the system were well under way.
none of that is different than the ststem we have now. The levers to try and maintain it just hadn’t been pulled.
Marty, the problem with the system is that it requires manual interventions to pull the levers. Which, as you note, have been thin on the ground for a while now. To my mind, a system ought to function without needing major or frequent interventions in order to work right.
I’d also note that by 1977 the (mostly libertarian) efforts to break the system were well under way.
I agree with Levinson about the flaws in the Constitution, and I don’t think they can be cured.
Nor do I think the divides in thinking can be papered over. The gap is too large and too absolute.
You might want to do some reading on the divides around the turn of the last century. They read to me to have been every bit as large and as nasty. Yet we (eventually) got past them. We’ve since generated new ones, but that’s not the same as the prior bunch being too big to overcome.
I agree with Levinson about the flaws in the Constitution, and I don’t think they can be cured.
Nor do I think the divides in thinking can be papered over. The gap is too large and too absolute.
You might want to do some reading on the divides around the turn of the last century. They read to me to have been every bit as large and as nasty. Yet we (eventually) got past them. We’ve since generated new ones, but that’s not the same as the prior bunch being too big to overcome.
“in republican form”, using Original Interpretation circa 1790, means
NO DAMNED MONARCH!
(I, for one, am willing to cut a break for Emperor Norton of the United States, and Protector of Mexico. He seemed nice…but a modern ‘monarch’? They get the Louis XVI treatment)
“in republican form”, using Original Interpretation circa 1790, means
NO DAMNED MONARCH!
(I, for one, am willing to cut a break for Emperor Norton of the United States, and Protector of Mexico. He seemed nice…but a modern ‘monarch’? They get the Louis XVI treatment)
I’d also note that by 1977 the (mostly libertarian) efforts to break the system were well under way.
You beat me to it. It didn’t “fail.” It was systematically dismantled. The process is ongoing.
*****
Without the states as an actor at the federal level, rural folks’ interests would be overrun by those of city or suburban folk.
That’s a reasonable concern,
At the moment, city/suburban folks interests are being overrun by those of the rural states. From the link in the OP:
I’d also note that by 1977 the (mostly libertarian) efforts to break the system were well under way.
You beat me to it. It didn’t “fail.” It was systematically dismantled. The process is ongoing.
*****
Without the states as an actor at the federal level, rural folks’ interests would be overrun by those of city or suburban folk.
That’s a reasonable concern,
At the moment, city/suburban folks interests are being overrun by those of the rural states. From the link in the OP:
Without looking up the numbers and doing the calculations again, I seem to recall that the population ratios between the largest and smallest states (Cali and WY now) is three times the ratio between those (VA and RI or DE, maybe?) when the constitution was written.
So the disproportion in senate representation has become more disproportionate.
Without looking up the numbers and doing the calculations again, I seem to recall that the population ratios between the largest and smallest states (Cali and WY now) is three times the ratio between those (VA and RI or DE, maybe?) when the constitution was written.
So the disproportion in senate representation has become more disproportionate.
It was Virginia (691,937) / Delaware (59,096) for a ratio of 11.7.
California (37,253,956) / Wyoming (563,626) is 66.1.
So, unless I’ve screwed something up, it’s not three times the ratio, it’s five and a half times the ratio.
But for sheer appallingness, Levinson’s factoid that more than half the population is represented by 18 senators takes the cake.
I didn’t quote the part where he points out the racial disparities of representation implied by these numbers.
It was Virginia (691,937) / Delaware (59,096) for a ratio of 11.7.
California (37,253,956) / Wyoming (563,626) is 66.1.
So, unless I’ve screwed something up, it’s not three times the ratio, it’s five and a half times the ratio.
But for sheer appallingness, Levinson’s factoid that more than half the population is represented by 18 senators takes the cake.
I didn’t quote the part where he points out the racial disparities of representation implied by these numbers.
because trillions upon trillions of dollars of wealth is dependent on the US as it currently exists.
What cleek said.
because trillions upon trillions of dollars of wealth is dependent on the US as it currently exists.
What cleek said.
trillions upon trillions of dollars of wealth is dependent on the US as it currently exists.
Just out of curiosity, how much of that involves assets of people with a net worth over, say, $20 million? That is, people who have more money than they can spend in a lifetime anyway.
Sometimes I think we need someone to invent a new status marker. One that doesn’t involve money (or anything else other people might actually need). Just something useful for those whose lives totally revolve around their dick-measuring contest with their peers.
trillions upon trillions of dollars of wealth is dependent on the US as it currently exists.
Just out of curiosity, how much of that involves assets of people with a net worth over, say, $20 million? That is, people who have more money than they can spend in a lifetime anyway.
Sometimes I think we need someone to invent a new status marker. One that doesn’t involve money (or anything else other people might actually need). Just something useful for those whose lives totally revolve around their dick-measuring contest with their peers.
It seems inevitable that a system that looks more like Asian countries is going to happen
This seems plausible to me, simply because there are so many more people in the world (and in this country) than there were in 1789. We no longer live in a world where people grew much of their own food, made their own homes and clothes, and bought whatever they bought from somebody who they knew personally and who lived within a couple of miles of them.
Things exist at a different scale now, and the Asian model, as lj has characterized it here, may (will?) simply be more successful in that context.
Which complicates the “consent of the governed” thing, because consent without meaningful agency is… maybe irrelevant?
If the “Asian model” simply proves to be better adapted to modern circumstances, will we be satisfied with being out-competed – with no longer being a, or the, dominant player in the world – if that means we can retain (some of) our own traditions?
It seems inevitable that a system that looks more like Asian countries is going to happen
This seems plausible to me, simply because there are so many more people in the world (and in this country) than there were in 1789. We no longer live in a world where people grew much of their own food, made their own homes and clothes, and bought whatever they bought from somebody who they knew personally and who lived within a couple of miles of them.
Things exist at a different scale now, and the Asian model, as lj has characterized it here, may (will?) simply be more successful in that context.
Which complicates the “consent of the governed” thing, because consent without meaningful agency is… maybe irrelevant?
If the “Asian model” simply proves to be better adapted to modern circumstances, will we be satisfied with being out-competed – with no longer being a, or the, dominant player in the world – if that means we can retain (some of) our own traditions?
So, unless I’ve screwed something up, it’s not three times the ratio, it’s five and a half times the ratio.
You did not. I was going by faulty memory. I knew for sure is was a single-digit factor, and it was something more than 2. ;^)
So, unless I’ve screwed something up, it’s not three times the ratio, it’s five and a half times the ratio.
You did not. I was going by faulty memory. I knew for sure is was a single-digit factor, and it was something more than 2. ;^)
Sometimes I think we need someone to invent a new status marker. One that doesn’t involve money (or anything else other people might actually need). Just something useful for those whose lives totally revolve around their dick-measuring contest with their peers.
Hm, what about owning actual people? Exotic ones with a non-white skin colour maybe. Apart from being a valuable status marker, they probably could be taught to do simple menial work. Plus it would be almost philanthropical given the way these people have to live otherwise.
[ / s ]
Sometimes I think we need someone to invent a new status marker. One that doesn’t involve money (or anything else other people might actually need). Just something useful for those whose lives totally revolve around their dick-measuring contest with their peers.
Hm, what about owning actual people? Exotic ones with a non-white skin colour maybe. Apart from being a valuable status marker, they probably could be taught to do simple menial work. Plus it would be almost philanthropical given the way these people have to live otherwise.
[ / s ]
Hartmut, at least it demonstrates that something other than a bank/brokerage balance can be used. 😉
Hartmut, at least it demonstrates that something other than a bank/brokerage balance can be used. 😉
In ancient Rome, the go-to status marker was erecting large, expensive, grandiose (and yet, useful) PUBLIC buildings.
With an inscription, of course.
That’s how we know, 2000 years later, what a great public-spirited guy that M. Agrippa was.
Nowdays, it’s more like “build a piece of shit, slap TRUMP on it, and try to get out before it collapses”.
They don’t make ’em like they used to.
In ancient Rome, the go-to status marker was erecting large, expensive, grandiose (and yet, useful) PUBLIC buildings.
With an inscription, of course.
That’s how we know, 2000 years later, what a great public-spirited guy that M. Agrippa was.
Nowdays, it’s more like “build a piece of shit, slap TRUMP on it, and try to get out before it collapses”.
They don’t make ’em like they used to.
(and yes, I know that Hadrian rebuilt Agrippa’s Pantheon, and put up an inscription crediting it to Agrippa)
(and yes, I know that Hadrian rebuilt Agrippa’s Pantheon, and put up an inscription crediting it to Agrippa)
I don’t have specifics to add to the discussion of what happens to the US if and when the current dysfunction ceases to be acceptable. But I do have a suggestion of where to start exploring the possibilities.
One of the best courses I took as an undergrad was a comparative politics course surveying the political institutions in Europe ca. 2002. The text was Political Institutions in Europe ed. by Josep Colomer. We had a familiarization dive into institutional rules and electoral systems through a Game Theory lens.
My biggest lasting impression from that class was that the US had only barely functioned since 1929 because it was running on consensus house-rules by protocol. That is no longer the case. Protocol is dead.
The beauty of that textbook was that we got to look at a lot of modern systems of representative government, the conditions that drove their consensus rules, and the dynamics that emerge from working within the institutions shaped by those rules.
We have a ton of information about how the US v. 2.0 might work once Americans get over the narcissistic idea of our own exceptionalism. This is not uncharted territory. Europe was a lab for much of this during the 20th C.
The text book is (sadly) out-of-print and out-of-date, but Colomer has a blog and I’m sure other books could be found that cover the same subjects.
I don’t have specifics to add to the discussion of what happens to the US if and when the current dysfunction ceases to be acceptable. But I do have a suggestion of where to start exploring the possibilities.
One of the best courses I took as an undergrad was a comparative politics course surveying the political institutions in Europe ca. 2002. The text was Political Institutions in Europe ed. by Josep Colomer. We had a familiarization dive into institutional rules and electoral systems through a Game Theory lens.
My biggest lasting impression from that class was that the US had only barely functioned since 1929 because it was running on consensus house-rules by protocol. That is no longer the case. Protocol is dead.
The beauty of that textbook was that we got to look at a lot of modern systems of representative government, the conditions that drove their consensus rules, and the dynamics that emerge from working within the institutions shaped by those rules.
We have a ton of information about how the US v. 2.0 might work once Americans get over the narcissistic idea of our own exceptionalism. This is not uncharted territory. Europe was a lab for much of this during the 20th C.
The text book is (sadly) out-of-print and out-of-date, but Colomer has a blog and I’m sure other books could be found that cover the same subjects.
The useful public building tradition of rich people is not dead that long in the US. Guys like Carnegie seem to have put some more value in proper and lasting architecture than the typical ultra-rich guy of to-day.
The useful public building tradition of rich people is not dead that long in the US. Guys like Carnegie seem to have put some more value in proper and lasting architecture than the typical ultra-rich guy of to-day.
In ancient Rome, the go-to status marker was erecting large, expensive, grandiose (and yet, useful) PUBLIC buildings.
With an inscription, of course.
. . .
They don’t make ’em like they used to.
And yet, Carnegie Libraries. So not just an ancient Roman phenomena.
In ancient Rome, the go-to status marker was erecting large, expensive, grandiose (and yet, useful) PUBLIC buildings.
With an inscription, of course.
. . .
They don’t make ’em like they used to.
And yet, Carnegie Libraries. So not just an ancient Roman phenomena.
Hartmut and I seem to have had the same thought at (roughly!) the same moment.
Hartmut and I seem to have had the same thought at (roughly!) the same moment.
Guys like Carnegie seem to have put some more value in proper and lasting architecture than the typical ultra-rich guy of to-day.
Some of them, like Bill Gates, are investing in people and their flourishing instead of building edifices.
Guys like Carnegie seem to have put some more value in proper and lasting architecture than the typical ultra-rich guy of to-day.
Some of them, like Bill Gates, are investing in people and their flourishing instead of building edifices.
The near term solution is to run the table in November. And follow that up by having those in power in the federal government do everything in their power to start putting things right, acting in full knowledge that notions like “norms” and “comity” have been flushed down the toilet by Republicans, and it’s not worth the time and effort to wade in the sewer to see if they can be salvaged.
In practical terms that means things like – Filibuster-gone. Adding seats to the Supreme Court, which can then be standing ready to overturn all of the egregious previous rulings, and reject ludicrous rulings made by lower Federal courts. All manner of Federal voting rights laws, regulations, etc., to limit voter suppression. A lot of fixes/changes that Russell mentions could follow from this, with no need for amendments.
This generation of political leaders seems to lack the creativity necessary for this, but overturning the 19th law that prescribes geographic-based districts for representatives would eliminate Federal gerrymandering, replaced with proportional representation in each state. No amendments necessary.
Heck, maybe some clever person could write up a list of such concrete proposals, promising their swift enactment once in office. Give it a catchy name, Contract With America, or something. Who knows, campaigning in favor of ideas and plans that will effect positive change, rather than just “Not Trump”, might get a some folks motivated to vote.
The near term solution is to run the table in November. And follow that up by having those in power in the federal government do everything in their power to start putting things right, acting in full knowledge that notions like “norms” and “comity” have been flushed down the toilet by Republicans, and it’s not worth the time and effort to wade in the sewer to see if they can be salvaged.
In practical terms that means things like – Filibuster-gone. Adding seats to the Supreme Court, which can then be standing ready to overturn all of the egregious previous rulings, and reject ludicrous rulings made by lower Federal courts. All manner of Federal voting rights laws, regulations, etc., to limit voter suppression. A lot of fixes/changes that Russell mentions could follow from this, with no need for amendments.
This generation of political leaders seems to lack the creativity necessary for this, but overturning the 19th law that prescribes geographic-based districts for representatives would eliminate Federal gerrymandering, replaced with proportional representation in each state. No amendments necessary.
Heck, maybe some clever person could write up a list of such concrete proposals, promising their swift enactment once in office. Give it a catchy name, Contract With America, or something. Who knows, campaigning in favor of ideas and plans that will effect positive change, rather than just “Not Trump”, might get a some folks motivated to vote.
Some of them, like Bill Gates, are investing in people and their flourishing instead of building edifices.
I agree completely about Gates, but it’s worth saying that, at the time Carnegie (and guys like Carnegie) were alive, building things like public libraries truly was a form of investing in people and their flourishing.
Some of them, like Bill Gates, are investing in people and their flourishing instead of building edifices.
I agree completely about Gates, but it’s worth saying that, at the time Carnegie (and guys like Carnegie) were alive, building things like public libraries truly was a form of investing in people and their flourishing.
While I don’t necessarily agree with Priest’s characterization of the problem, I do agree with the thinking. There is plenty that could be done coloring within the lines (or even coloring outside the lines as has been our wont).
I think a breakup would be a disaster. And wrong thinking.
IMHO, the most important aspect of the Constitution is the separation of powers. I don’t think it is necessarily a problem when different branches are at loggerheads or even when one can’t get something done.
I see your Citizens United and raise it one huge, freaking, powerful, unaccountable administrative state.
If the California/Wyoming imbalance is a problem, then move to Wyoming. Problem solved.
I live in California. Talk about political power imbalance. You want to assign electors proportionally by popular vote? Let’s start with California and see how that goes.
California is bleeding people to Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas. There is a reason why and it’s not simply economic.
I’ve lived in one of the least populated states (was at one time) and now the most populous. Senate composition makes perfect sense to me. But I was born in Alaska.
Washington is not responsive to the people. We have a political class. We have an extreme partisan divide. All real problems. And, IMHO, none of them solved by a reset. Soft reset, sure.
While I don’t necessarily agree with Priest’s characterization of the problem, I do agree with the thinking. There is plenty that could be done coloring within the lines (or even coloring outside the lines as has been our wont).
I think a breakup would be a disaster. And wrong thinking.
IMHO, the most important aspect of the Constitution is the separation of powers. I don’t think it is necessarily a problem when different branches are at loggerheads or even when one can’t get something done.
I see your Citizens United and raise it one huge, freaking, powerful, unaccountable administrative state.
If the California/Wyoming imbalance is a problem, then move to Wyoming. Problem solved.
I live in California. Talk about political power imbalance. You want to assign electors proportionally by popular vote? Let’s start with California and see how that goes.
California is bleeding people to Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas. There is a reason why and it’s not simply economic.
I’ve lived in one of the least populated states (was at one time) and now the most populous. Senate composition makes perfect sense to me. But I was born in Alaska.
Washington is not responsive to the people. We have a political class. We have an extreme partisan divide. All real problems. And, IMHO, none of them solved by a reset. Soft reset, sure.
Adding seats to the Supreme Court
would be immediately followed by more seats added by the GOP, as soon as they got the chance.
repeat until the public gets fed up with the game and caps the size with an Amendment.
can we make elementary game theory a required course in high school?
Adding seats to the Supreme Court
would be immediately followed by more seats added by the GOP, as soon as they got the chance.
repeat until the public gets fed up with the game and caps the size with an Amendment.
can we make elementary game theory a required course in high school?
Democratic politicians could stand some Game Theory education themselves, seeing as they too frequently find themselves in the worst square of the Prisoners’ Dilemma grid.
Democratic politicians could stand some Game Theory education themselves, seeing as they too frequently find themselves in the worst square of the Prisoners’ Dilemma grid.
Cleek,
Adding seats to the Supreme Court
would be immediately followed by more seats added by the GOP, as soon as they got the chance.
Maybe, but:
It takes control of the Senate, the House, and the Presidency to do it. The chance might not come.
I don’t trust the Republicans not to add seats if they have control and want to, regardless of whether the Democrats do it or not. Why do you think they wouldn’t? They will justify it by referring to Democrats who advocated it. Remember the BS “Biden rule” that they used to defend the Garland travesty?
bc,
If the California/Wyoming imbalance is a problem, then move to Wyoming. Problem solved.
I live in California. Talk about political power imbalance. You want to assign electors proportionally by popular vote? Let’s start with California and see how that goes.
Some of what you say is rational, but these two paragraphs are just silly. Sorry.
If we need to negotiate a reset, it will be a lot easier if we stay away from foolish arguments. In fact, the fondness of the right for this sort of thing is one reason I am pessimistic about being able to reset.
Cleek,
Adding seats to the Supreme Court
would be immediately followed by more seats added by the GOP, as soon as they got the chance.
Maybe, but:
It takes control of the Senate, the House, and the Presidency to do it. The chance might not come.
I don’t trust the Republicans not to add seats if they have control and want to, regardless of whether the Democrats do it or not. Why do you think they wouldn’t? They will justify it by referring to Democrats who advocated it. Remember the BS “Biden rule” that they used to defend the Garland travesty?
bc,
If the California/Wyoming imbalance is a problem, then move to Wyoming. Problem solved.
I live in California. Talk about political power imbalance. You want to assign electors proportionally by popular vote? Let’s start with California and see how that goes.
Some of what you say is rational, but these two paragraphs are just silly. Sorry.
If we need to negotiate a reset, it will be a lot easier if we stay away from foolish arguments. In fact, the fondness of the right for this sort of thing is one reason I am pessimistic about being able to reset.
I don’t think it is necessarily a problem when different branches are at loggerheads or even when one can’t get something done
By way of contrast, I think it’s pretty much always a problem when any or all branches, or even just the plain old administrative state, can’t get things done.
Things need doing.
Washington is not responsive to the people.
It’s extremely responsive to some people. The “some” part is, IMO, the problem.
I don’t think it is necessarily a problem when different branches are at loggerheads or even when one can’t get something done
By way of contrast, I think it’s pretty much always a problem when any or all branches, or even just the plain old administrative state, can’t get things done.
Things need doing.
Washington is not responsive to the people.
It’s extremely responsive to some people. The “some” part is, IMO, the problem.
russell: Don’t really disagree, I just see inaction as a benefit much of the time.
byomtov: meant to be ridiculous in part. But it’s not entirely silly. One’s political influence can be diluted in many ways, only one of which is the structure of the Senate. And, being a free country, if that bothers one enough, you can move to a state with low population and viola! Influence.
I don’t disagree that it is a legitimate issue to consider that the imbalance between states has grown larger. I’d look for ways to address that outside of a reboot.
russell: Don’t really disagree, I just see inaction as a benefit much of the time.
byomtov: meant to be ridiculous in part. But it’s not entirely silly. One’s political influence can be diluted in many ways, only one of which is the structure of the Senate. And, being a free country, if that bothers one enough, you can move to a state with low population and viola! Influence.
I don’t disagree that it is a legitimate issue to consider that the imbalance between states has grown larger. I’d look for ways to address that outside of a reboot.
I think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power. What an awful place to live this will be. I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live, or kansas or Alabama.
I think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power. What an awful place to live this will be. I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live, or kansas or Alabama.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
What an awful place to live this will be.
Ha ha. To me, an awful place is now, where Democrats are disenfranchised by the electoral college and the Senate. To the majority of people, likewise. To the overwhelming majority of people under 60, likewise.
Marty, you’re protecting your world which won’t exist shortly. You survive. Fine. For me too.
What an awful place to live this will be.
Ha ha. To me, an awful place is now, where Democrats are disenfranchised by the electoral college and the Senate. To the majority of people, likewise. To the overwhelming majority of people under 60, likewise.
Marty, you’re protecting your world which won’t exist shortly. You survive. Fine. For me too.
I think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power.
Does that include changing voting registration and voting rules, to make it harder for “the wrong people” to vote? You know, they kind who, if you let them all vote, nobody would ever get elected again as a Republican. (Not that I believe that would actually be the result. Just probably not RWNJ Republicans.)
I think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power.
Does that include changing voting registration and voting rules, to make it harder for “the wrong people” to vote? You know, they kind who, if you let them all vote, nobody would ever get elected again as a Republican. (Not that I believe that would actually be the result. Just probably not RWNJ Republicans.)
I think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power. What an awful place to live this will be.
Talk about projection.
Merrick Garland.
Massive voter suppression.
Caging of immigrants.
The list could go on and on and on and on.
This is already an awful place to live for an awful lot of people, and it isn’t the Democrats who have been pushing it in that direction for decades.
I just love it when Marty comes around to play savior of the poor and oppressed.
I think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power. What an awful place to live this will be.
Talk about projection.
Merrick Garland.
Massive voter suppression.
Caging of immigrants.
The list could go on and on and on and on.
This is already an awful place to live for an awful lot of people, and it isn’t the Democrats who have been pushing it in that direction for decades.
I just love it when Marty comes around to play savior of the poor and oppressed.
Game theory twist on the “expand the SC” proposal.
Expand it to 15 justices, but do that over a six year term 2/2/2. Institute a 10 year limit on SC tenure. Phase out one seat a year beginning as soon as the five new justices are seated. Allow justices to retire early if they wish to aim for an ideologically sympathetic congress.
Game theory twist on the “expand the SC” proposal.
Expand it to 15 justices, but do that over a six year term 2/2/2. Institute a 10 year limit on SC tenure. Phase out one seat a year beginning as soon as the five new justices are seated. Allow justices to retire early if they wish to aim for an ideologically sympathetic congress.
You can find the book nous recommends here
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=Political+Institutions+in+Europe&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def
You can find the book nous recommends here
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=Political+Institutions+in+Europe&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def
I just love it when Marty comes around to play savior of the poor and oppressed.
Thank you. Especially when we learn that, when he’s gainfully employed, taxes are what drive him insane.
Actually, for the only time in history, taxes are my problem too. Last year I took out a lot of money from my IRA, and did so without considering that taxes on that money is due this year. I do have just enough left to pay it, but I’m going to be in a world of hurt for the coming few years. But that’s because I’m just a normal old person who decided to do something different, and made a rash move without planning properly. It will be fine. Or not. Eventually.
In any case, I’m not whining about my status. Sooner than I’d like, my status will be “dead”. Taking a short-term win!
I just love it when Marty comes around to play savior of the poor and oppressed.
Thank you. Especially when we learn that, when he’s gainfully employed, taxes are what drive him insane.
Actually, for the only time in history, taxes are my problem too. Last year I took out a lot of money from my IRA, and did so without considering that taxes on that money is due this year. I do have just enough left to pay it, but I’m going to be in a world of hurt for the coming few years. But that’s because I’m just a normal old person who decided to do something different, and made a rash move without planning properly. It will be fine. Or not. Eventually.
In any case, I’m not whining about my status. Sooner than I’d like, my status will be “dead”. Taking a short-term win!
What an awful place to live this will be. I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live, or kansas or Alabama.
I live in MA and have zero desire to tell people in other states how to live. By the same token, I don’t want them telling me, either.
But I do want decisions as to how we all live made by a represenative government. There are two aspects to the whole federalism issue and it’s extremely important to keep them apart.
One is decentralization of matters that it makes sense to decentralize (though I remark that the fervent decentralizers of the right really aren’t happy with cities making their own decisions – happy to overrule those, but never mind).
The other is how to make decisions that affect everyone, or lots of people in lots of places. There is zip reason why we should allow the population of Alabama or Wyoming an equal voice with that of California and Florida in those decisions. There is no logical reason for it.
What it amounts to is exactly what you object to, in reverse. Alabama and Wyoming voters, with a combined population about 80% that of Massachusetts, outvote it in the Senate 4-2.
When it comes to federal policy matters it’s those states that tell the others “how to live.”
What an awful place to live this will be. I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live, or kansas or Alabama.
I live in MA and have zero desire to tell people in other states how to live. By the same token, I don’t want them telling me, either.
But I do want decisions as to how we all live made by a represenative government. There are two aspects to the whole federalism issue and it’s extremely important to keep them apart.
One is decentralization of matters that it makes sense to decentralize (though I remark that the fervent decentralizers of the right really aren’t happy with cities making their own decisions – happy to overrule those, but never mind).
The other is how to make decisions that affect everyone, or lots of people in lots of places. There is zip reason why we should allow the population of Alabama or Wyoming an equal voice with that of California and Florida in those decisions. There is no logical reason for it.
What it amounts to is exactly what you object to, in reverse. Alabama and Wyoming voters, with a combined population about 80% that of Massachusetts, outvote it in the Senate 4-2.
When it comes to federal policy matters it’s those states that tell the others “how to live.”
Sleep tight:
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a22728
Sleep tight:
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a22728
Actuallybyomtov. If we went by the current rules very few things about the way you live should be decided by the federal government.
You cant be for moving everything to fed control and then claim those states are telling everyone how to live.
The only reason to go through all those gyrations is because you do want to use the fed government to tell people in Texas how to live.
Actuallybyomtov. If we went by the current rules very few things about the way you live should be decided by the federal government.
You cant be for moving everything to fed control and then claim those states are telling everyone how to live.
The only reason to go through all those gyrations is because you do want to use the fed government to tell people in Texas how to live.
The only reason to go through all those gyrations is because you do want to use the fed government to tell people in Texas how to live.
This is all my bollocks.
Thank you and good night.
The only reason to go through all those gyrations is because you do want to use the fed government to tell people in Texas how to live.
This is all my bollocks.
Thank you and good night.
sapient, other than occasionally pointing out that the desire to be in charge is behind all the high minded bullshit about the electoral college, I am happy to leave those decisions to the next few generations.
To fundamentally change the rules will require a lot more than a 3 million vote difference solely based in the big cities.
Its unfathomable to me to think 26,000 human beings should live per square mile. But if people want to do that they will. But they shouldnt try to make everybody do it.
And to finish, I’m trying to carry on a serious discussion about these things, with some occasional harsh words, but I get lists of asshole things I dont support.
Gerrymandering isnt uniquely Republican but it has served them well in places, and Democrats in others.
Aside from the people here, Democrats care about voter id because they perceive it might cost them votes. If the Republicans were going to lose votes the Democrats would be all for voter id.
The question is, aside from all that should you have to identify yourself adequately and uniformly to vote, which happens some places, I dont feel strongly about this but the objections to it seem completely politically motivated.
If I am being accused of defending a way of life that allowed a dirt poor kid from the worst part of Dallas to be the first person in his family to go to junior college and then college and ultimately provide a better life for four kids, who are busy doing the same for 7 grandkids. I’m guilty.
I see a few of my nieces and nephews trying to get there. So, every discussion here isnt about how much tax I pay, it’s about supporting a society and economy providing those kids the opportunity to succeed.
I have and dont have all I’m going to get. I’m scratching by for a few more years so my wife will have enough to have a decent life once I die. I suspect she will outlive me by twenty years.
So maybe ease up on the judgement. I dont support sleazy politicians anymore than anyone here, we differ on policies to create a better society and everyone makes compromises on the people they vote for that they perceive will most likely achieve those.
sapient, other than occasionally pointing out that the desire to be in charge is behind all the high minded bullshit about the electoral college, I am happy to leave those decisions to the next few generations.
To fundamentally change the rules will require a lot more than a 3 million vote difference solely based in the big cities.
Its unfathomable to me to think 26,000 human beings should live per square mile. But if people want to do that they will. But they shouldnt try to make everybody do it.
And to finish, I’m trying to carry on a serious discussion about these things, with some occasional harsh words, but I get lists of asshole things I dont support.
Gerrymandering isnt uniquely Republican but it has served them well in places, and Democrats in others.
Aside from the people here, Democrats care about voter id because they perceive it might cost them votes. If the Republicans were going to lose votes the Democrats would be all for voter id.
The question is, aside from all that should you have to identify yourself adequately and uniformly to vote, which happens some places, I dont feel strongly about this but the objections to it seem completely politically motivated.
If I am being accused of defending a way of life that allowed a dirt poor kid from the worst part of Dallas to be the first person in his family to go to junior college and then college and ultimately provide a better life for four kids, who are busy doing the same for 7 grandkids. I’m guilty.
I see a few of my nieces and nephews trying to get there. So, every discussion here isnt about how much tax I pay, it’s about supporting a society and economy providing those kids the opportunity to succeed.
I have and dont have all I’m going to get. I’m scratching by for a few more years so my wife will have enough to have a decent life once I die. I suspect she will outlive me by twenty years.
So maybe ease up on the judgement. I dont support sleazy politicians anymore than anyone here, we differ on policies to create a better society and everyone makes compromises on the people they vote for that they perceive will most likely achieve those.
bc,
OK.You were kidding. I’ll buy it.
But I spend some time on relatively right-wing blogs, notably Volokh, where there are lots of idiots who make those kinds of arguments seriously. That influences my opinions about the futiure of the country.
One’s political influence can be diluted in many ways,
Have you considered that the EC makes your opinion on Presidential elections meaningless? Because you live within the boundaries of an area we call “California” you get no say-so as to who will be elected President. You don’t count.
I don’t know who you voted for in 2016, but 4.5 million of your fellow Californians voted for Trump. Only in FL and TX did he get more votes. Yet their votes didn’t count. Didn’t matter.
Doesn’t that seem odd?
bc,
OK.You were kidding. I’ll buy it.
But I spend some time on relatively right-wing blogs, notably Volokh, where there are lots of idiots who make those kinds of arguments seriously. That influences my opinions about the futiure of the country.
One’s political influence can be diluted in many ways,
Have you considered that the EC makes your opinion on Presidential elections meaningless? Because you live within the boundaries of an area we call “California” you get no say-so as to who will be elected President. You don’t count.
I don’t know who you voted for in 2016, but 4.5 million of your fellow Californians voted for Trump. Only in FL and TX did he get more votes. Yet their votes didn’t count. Didn’t matter.
Doesn’t that seem odd?
So maybe ease up on the judgement
Back atcha. A two-way street, that.
I feel pretty comfortable saying that nobody here other than whoever lives in TX devotes any time or thought whatsoever to the project of telling anybody in TX how to live.
It’s great that you’ve done well, sorry things are tight right now. It’s a freaking virus, nobody asked for it, we all, like you, are just trying to get through it.
So maybe ease up on the judgement
Back atcha. A two-way street, that.
I feel pretty comfortable saying that nobody here other than whoever lives in TX devotes any time or thought whatsoever to the project of telling anybody in TX how to live.
It’s great that you’ve done well, sorry things are tight right now. It’s a freaking virus, nobody asked for it, we all, like you, are just trying to get through it.
The trouble is Marty, that the party you support has a) systematically made it harder for your kids and grandkids to have a better life and future, by syphoning off disproportionate riches to themselves and their backers and impoverishing everybody else, and b) systematically lied to you, using all the black arts that money can buy, to convince you that they are the champions of the common man, and that their opponents are (variously) communists, criminals, baby-murderers, incompetents or any number of other demonisations. Whereas of course you will find crooks and incompetents in both parties, but only one party ensures that your grandkids will probably not benefit from the kind of upward social mobility you have earned.
The trouble is Marty, that the party you support has a) systematically made it harder for your kids and grandkids to have a better life and future, by syphoning off disproportionate riches to themselves and their backers and impoverishing everybody else, and b) systematically lied to you, using all the black arts that money can buy, to convince you that they are the champions of the common man, and that their opponents are (variously) communists, criminals, baby-murderers, incompetents or any number of other demonisations. Whereas of course you will find crooks and incompetents in both parties, but only one party ensures that your grandkids will probably not benefit from the kind of upward social mobility you have earned.
Its unfathomable to me to think 26,000 human beings should live per square mile.
Don’t move to NYC. Problem solved.
I wouldn’t live there either. See? Common ground.
Its unfathomable to me to think 26,000 human beings should live per square mile.
Don’t move to NYC. Problem solved.
I wouldn’t live there either. See? Common ground.
I think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power. What an awful place to live this will be. I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live, or kansas or Alabama.
So maybe ease up on the judgement.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
As I said already: projection much?
And honestly, WTF is this about: “I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live” —
I have my suspicions, and one of the things they involve goes back to one of my first encounters with Marty on this blog. But in that case, Marty’s real goal is to make sure that some of the people in Texas get to tell other people in Texas how to live, i.e. back in the closet with you, buddy.
the desire to be in charge is behind all the high minded bullshit about the electoral college
More projection. It is either a concept too difficult for Marty to grasp (rocks? post?), or one that he will never ever ever admit, that the current situation means a distinct minority of the people in this country are in charge of the majority, by virtue of having a voice in government wildly out of proportion with their numbers.
I think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power. What an awful place to live this will be. I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live, or kansas or Alabama.
So maybe ease up on the judgement.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
As I said already: projection much?
And honestly, WTF is this about: “I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live” —
I have my suspicions, and one of the things they involve goes back to one of my first encounters with Marty on this blog. But in that case, Marty’s real goal is to make sure that some of the people in Texas get to tell other people in Texas how to live, i.e. back in the closet with you, buddy.
the desire to be in charge is behind all the high minded bullshit about the electoral college
More projection. It is either a concept too difficult for Marty to grasp (rocks? post?), or one that he will never ever ever admit, that the current situation means a distinct minority of the people in this country are in charge of the majority, by virtue of having a voice in government wildly out of proportion with their numbers.
And, where the virus is concerned, only one party is supporting the buffoon in the White House while he thrashes around appointing incompetents to handle an unprecedented (but foreseeable, which is why there was a pandemic response department until he disbanded it) health emergency. And while we know you don’t support him, the party you do support is all in for him.
And, where the virus is concerned, only one party is supporting the buffoon in the White House while he thrashes around appointing incompetents to handle an unprecedented (but foreseeable, which is why there was a pandemic response department until he disbanded it) health emergency. And while we know you don’t support him, the party you do support is all in for him.
It’s 3.30 in the morning. I shouldn’t get into this so late, and on my phone! Peace out, and good night.
It’s 3.30 in the morning. I shouldn’t get into this so late, and on my phone! Peace out, and good night.
What an awful place to live this will be.
Yeah, how horrible to be as awful as Massachusetts, the cesspit of the nation, where no one would possibly live if they could help it.
What an awful place to live this will be.
Yeah, how horrible to be as awful as Massachusetts, the cesspit of the nation, where no one would possibly live if they could help it.
think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power
There are not that many people who are interested in power. Most people activelt DO NOT want power.
Ask around and see.
Most people want agency, which is a different thing. They want the ability to act effectively in their own lives and circumstances.
Not everybody else’s. Their own, and int their own communities.
Marty and bc should be nodding their heads right now.
At the moment, a political minority has unwarranted control over the operation of the federal government. Which leaves the majority of the population lacking agency, as regards federal governance.
That’s not sustainable. It has to change, or things will break.
“Things will break” likely sounds ok to some folks, I suspect it will be less palatable IRL.
think people in general, Democrats in particular, should stop trying to change the rules so they can gain power
There are not that many people who are interested in power. Most people activelt DO NOT want power.
Ask around and see.
Most people want agency, which is a different thing. They want the ability to act effectively in their own lives and circumstances.
Not everybody else’s. Their own, and int their own communities.
Marty and bc should be nodding their heads right now.
At the moment, a political minority has unwarranted control over the operation of the federal government. Which leaves the majority of the population lacking agency, as regards federal governance.
That’s not sustainable. It has to change, or things will break.
“Things will break” likely sounds ok to some folks, I suspect it will be less palatable IRL.
That’s just bullshint janie, I dont want anyone in the closet. Never have. We had one disagreement over marriage, not even gay marriage ten years ago. As an executive in the early 2000s I supported our LGBT employees, one of the earliest companies in the country to provide domestic partner insurance. We paid for IVF for anyone who wanted it. Up to two rounds, when the insurance didn’t. There is not a fucking homophobic bone in my body. You are just wrong.
There is not a distinct minority in charge, there is a majority of voting districts in this country that prefer GOP policies. Some I agree with and some I dont. That’s the way this country was built. The only reason Democrsts dont like it is because they havent won the Senate lately win. Well, and then Trump.
That’s just bullshint janie, I dont want anyone in the closet. Never have. We had one disagreement over marriage, not even gay marriage ten years ago. As an executive in the early 2000s I supported our LGBT employees, one of the earliest companies in the country to provide domestic partner insurance. We paid for IVF for anyone who wanted it. Up to two rounds, when the insurance didn’t. There is not a fucking homophobic bone in my body. You are just wrong.
There is not a distinct minority in charge, there is a majority of voting districts in this country that prefer GOP policies. Some I agree with and some I dont. That’s the way this country was built. The only reason Democrsts dont like it is because they havent won the Senate lately win. Well, and then Trump.
There is not a distinct minority in charge
BULLSHIT.
Districts are not human beings.
And so what it that’s how it was built? It was built two hundred years ago by people who had a fucking clue about how times change and needs along with them. I for one am tired of being told what to do by Kentucky and Alabama.
There is not a distinct minority in charge
BULLSHIT.
Districts are not human beings.
And so what it that’s how it was built? It was built two hundred years ago by people who had a fucking clue about how times change and needs along with them. I for one am tired of being told what to do by Kentucky and Alabama.
Supposing that Marty is living in MA at the moment (based on his complaints about Baker), I invite him to tell me something:
If we MA residents shouldn’t “tell people in Texas how to live”, shouldn’t Lexington residents refrain from “telling people in Concord how to live”? IOW, should we also rein back state government, and let each city or town decide its own “way of life”?
Should we maybe give the small towns in MA each the same State Senate representation as Boston or Worcester, to protect their “interests” vis a vis the big cities?
If people like me and Bernie and Russell outnumber people like Marty in our little Commonwealth, so that we are effectively “telling Marty how to live”, is it maybe time for Cape Cod to secede?
–TP
Supposing that Marty is living in MA at the moment (based on his complaints about Baker), I invite him to tell me something:
If we MA residents shouldn’t “tell people in Texas how to live”, shouldn’t Lexington residents refrain from “telling people in Concord how to live”? IOW, should we also rein back state government, and let each city or town decide its own “way of life”?
Should we maybe give the small towns in MA each the same State Senate representation as Boston or Worcester, to protect their “interests” vis a vis the big cities?
If people like me and Bernie and Russell outnumber people like Marty in our little Commonwealth, so that we are effectively “telling Marty how to live”, is it maybe time for Cape Cod to secede?
–TP
“I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live” —
. . . to make sure that some of the people in Texas get to tell other people in Texas how to live
The essence of government is that some people get to tell other people what they can and can’t do. In some cases, it’s the guys with the biggest guns and the nastiest disposition. In others, it’s the guys in the majority — maybe in the towm, maybe in the state, maybe in the country, conceivably on the planet.
In every case, somebody (even if it’s just some would-be thief or rapist) is getting his liberty infringed. If you aren’t OK with that, become a libertarian, stock up on guns and ammo, and move to Somalia. Otherwise, feel free to try to convince othets to do things your way. And be prepared to live with the reality that sometimes, perhaps even most of the time, you will be less than totally successful.
“I have no idea why the people in Massachusetts so desperately want to tell the people in Texas how to live” —
. . . to make sure that some of the people in Texas get to tell other people in Texas how to live
The essence of government is that some people get to tell other people what they can and can’t do. In some cases, it’s the guys with the biggest guns and the nastiest disposition. In others, it’s the guys in the majority — maybe in the towm, maybe in the state, maybe in the country, conceivably on the planet.
In every case, somebody (even if it’s just some would-be thief or rapist) is getting his liberty infringed. If you aren’t OK with that, become a libertarian, stock up on guns and ammo, and move to Somalia. Otherwise, feel free to try to convince othets to do things your way. And be prepared to live with the reality that sometimes, perhaps even most of the time, you will be less than totally successful.
“The only reason Democrats don’t like it” is because it is broken.
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
And Clickbait, let’s not forget.
We had one disagreement over marriage, not even gay marriage ten years ago.
Utter revisionist history bullshit. It was most directly and explicitly about gay marriage. Your core position was that because people like me wanted gay marriage, we were saying “fuck you I got mine” to your unmarried son and his partner. As if we were selfish shits because we were righting for a right (to get married) that your unmarried son and his partner already had. As if we were selfish shits for fighting for what we wanted for our lives, instead of for what you wanted for someone else’s life.
You haven’t budged an inch about anything in all these years, and you come on here and say how awful it would be to live in a place where people like me had a fair say in the rules, and then you complain about how divided the country is.
Talk to yourself from now on, I’m done with you.
“The only reason Democrats don’t like it” is because it is broken.
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
And Clickbait, let’s not forget.
We had one disagreement over marriage, not even gay marriage ten years ago.
Utter revisionist history bullshit. It was most directly and explicitly about gay marriage. Your core position was that because people like me wanted gay marriage, we were saying “fuck you I got mine” to your unmarried son and his partner. As if we were selfish shits because we were righting for a right (to get married) that your unmarried son and his partner already had. As if we were selfish shits for fighting for what we wanted for our lives, instead of for what you wanted for someone else’s life.
You haven’t budged an inch about anything in all these years, and you come on here and say how awful it would be to live in a place where people like me had a fair say in the rules, and then you complain about how divided the country is.
Talk to yourself from now on, I’m done with you.
Tony. The country was built on the agreement that each state had certain rights. not cities, not towns not cape cod.
How many off point hypotheticals can you come up with in a day?
Janie, I dont think you should be told by them. Maine is responsible for defending your rights.
Tony. The country was built on the agreement that each state had certain rights. not cities, not towns not cape cod.
How many off point hypotheticals can you come up with in a day?
Janie, I dont think you should be told by them. Maine is responsible for defending your rights.
The country was built on the agreement that each state had certain rights.
An agreement which was no longer operative at least since the XVII Amendment, which was a century ago. Or, at absolute minimum, modified out of all recognition from the original.
The country was built on the agreement that each state had certain rights.
An agreement which was no longer operative at least since the XVII Amendment, which was a century ago. Or, at absolute minimum, modified out of all recognition from the original.
Janie, I havent initiated a dialogue with you in years. But you took one comment that I used to defend my view that the discussion should be expanded to more people and carry it around like a club for anytime you are mad at me. It was one comment, ffs. Where do you think I should move? I was supporting domestic partnership as a universal solution. I still am. There are more varied family situations now than there were then.
Laws shouldnt becdependent on whether someone is married. And they have changed some, adoption laws have changed in lots of places. I think there is still work to do.
Your answer at the time was that you were focused on gay marriage and someone else could fight the bigger battle. I’m still fighting it as best I can. I dont know why that pushes you off so much.
Janie, I havent initiated a dialogue with you in years. But you took one comment that I used to defend my view that the discussion should be expanded to more people and carry it around like a club for anytime you are mad at me. It was one comment, ffs. Where do you think I should move? I was supporting domestic partnership as a universal solution. I still am. There are more varied family situations now than there were then.
Laws shouldnt becdependent on whether someone is married. And they have changed some, adoption laws have changed in lots of places. I think there is still work to do.
Your answer at the time was that you were focused on gay marriage and someone else could fight the bigger battle. I’m still fighting it as best I can. I dont know why that pushes you off so much.
How many off point hypotheticals can you come up with in a day?
Someone owes me a new keyboard!!!
How many off point hypotheticals can you come up with in a day?
Someone owes me a new keyboard!!!
Meanwhile, absolutely incoherent, malign madness jacking us around every day from one extreme to another:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-disagrees-with-georgias-decision-to-reopen-economy-cdc-chief-tries-to-soften-controversial-coronavirus-remarks-2020-04-22?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
The country is shattering.
Meanwhile, absolutely incoherent, malign madness jacking us around every day from one extreme to another:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-disagrees-with-georgias-decision-to-reopen-economy-cdc-chief-tries-to-soften-controversial-coronavirus-remarks-2020-04-22?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
The country is shattering.
Marty,
The country was built of 13 colonies. Coastal ones at that. But I was pretty sure you’d reply as you did: stand on originalism and nothing else. Not, for instance, any rationale for why that original arrangement was good then or is still good now.
–TP
Marty,
The country was built of 13 colonies. Coastal ones at that. But I was pretty sure you’d reply as you did: stand on originalism and nothing else. Not, for instance, any rationale for why that original arrangement was good then or is still good now.
–TP
bc: Its unfathomable to me to think 26,000 human beings should live per square mile. But if people want to do that they will. But they shouldnt try to make everybody do it.
What? Who’s making everyone live in the city? Last I heard, it’s really expensive to do that, and although I would love to have a walkable lifestyle, to go to restaurants and cultural events (if only, whenever in the future we can have that again) I can’t afford it. What are you even talking about? I wish to hell someone would force me into a lovely urban lifestyle. Obviously, they would have to pay my bills! But for now I am loving suburban Charlottesville. With garden and so forth. Also nice.
In other words, I’m not complaining. I do want to maintain my situation, to be able to live in a sheltered place, eat, enjoy my hobbies, my friends, and be well. I don’t want more.
bc: Its unfathomable to me to think 26,000 human beings should live per square mile. But if people want to do that they will. But they shouldnt try to make everybody do it.
What? Who’s making everyone live in the city? Last I heard, it’s really expensive to do that, and although I would love to have a walkable lifestyle, to go to restaurants and cultural events (if only, whenever in the future we can have that again) I can’t afford it. What are you even talking about? I wish to hell someone would force me into a lovely urban lifestyle. Obviously, they would have to pay my bills! But for now I am loving suburban Charlottesville. With garden and so forth. Also nice.
In other words, I’m not complaining. I do want to maintain my situation, to be able to live in a sheltered place, eat, enjoy my hobbies, my friends, and be well. I don’t want more.
No Tony, it was built a state at a time, with a variety of agreements but all based on that original assurance that the states retained rights not explicitly granted the feds. 50 states joined. or were split up, based on the agreement that was established by those 13 colonies. The latest two states as recently as 1959.
No Tony, it was built a state at a time, with a variety of agreements but all based on that original assurance that the states retained rights not explicitly granted the feds. 50 states joined. or were split up, based on the agreement that was established by those 13 colonies. The latest two states as recently as 1959.
absolutely incoherent, malign madness jacking us around every day from one extreme to another:
Nah, totally, utterly, predictable. If it works for Georgia, hey he said he respected the governor’s decision. BUT, if it blows up, Trump’s in the clear because he said he disagreed. Total avoidance of responsibility, even when people do what you called for: Trumpism in essence.
absolutely incoherent, malign madness jacking us around every day from one extreme to another:
Nah, totally, utterly, predictable. If it works for Georgia, hey he said he respected the governor’s decision. BUT, if it blows up, Trump’s in the clear because he said he disagreed. Total avoidance of responsibility, even when people do what you called for: Trumpism in essence.
Wow, this is amazing
https://youtu.be/APoSHB9pQk8
Wow, this is amazing
https://youtu.be/APoSHB9pQk8
There is zip reason why we should allow the population of Alabama or Wyoming an equal voice with that of California and Florida in those decisions.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “those decisions.” In Alaska, despite having two senators, decisions were often made that were simply not informed. Mainly regarding land use of federal lands. Alaska is a state where over 60% of the land is federal and the federal government has a disproportionate impact for good and for ill. Having two senators meant at a minimum someone had to listen. I think about the NYT reporter who came to ANWAR and left changed. Informed. He understood the “Alaskan” position (which is varied, BTW).
The west in general has land issues very different than the east. Western states bargained for mineral rights, water rights, etc. that are critical to the people of those states. Federal decisions can have a disproportionate impact.
In terms of “how we live our lives,” if that is what you mean by “those decisions,” I do see the point. But that was not lost on the Framers. I think some were way to quick to jump on Marty for pointing out the obvious: the more you mandate nation-wide rules for everyone, the more influence the small states will have. Even if done through SCOTUS vs. legislation, small states have more of a say through appointments, right?
Have you considered that the EC makes your opinion on Presidential elections meaningless?
Not only have I considered it, that was actually my point. But I don’t need an amendment. I just need to convince my Californian friends to award EC votes proportionately according to population. Ha ha ha ha.
Marty and bc should be nodding their heads right now.
Sure. So far.
At the moment, a political minority has unwarranted control over the operation of the federal government. Which leaves the majority of the population lacking agency, as regards federal governance.
That depends on the meaning of “political minority” and “unwarranted.” I get that is in your opinion and hence the post about changing the system, because under the system we have, it is warranted and there is a majority in some ways, not others. And while there might be some impact on agency, it is far from complete.
I think states both large and small have a lot to offer and we consider further federalization at our peril. The problems outlined here are fixable but not with the current divisiveness. I don’t think the instinct to move towards pure democracy for the nation is a good idea. COVID has shown how important food production is and a lot of that occurs in smaller states. A lot of different concerns.
bc: Its unfathomable to me to think 26,000 human beings . . .
That was Marty, Sapient. I love to visit the city. I could see myself living in the city for a time and get those that do. I really do. Like you, I’d love to take advantage of the cultural variety of the city. But overall I’d much rather visit.
There is zip reason why we should allow the population of Alabama or Wyoming an equal voice with that of California and Florida in those decisions.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “those decisions.” In Alaska, despite having two senators, decisions were often made that were simply not informed. Mainly regarding land use of federal lands. Alaska is a state where over 60% of the land is federal and the federal government has a disproportionate impact for good and for ill. Having two senators meant at a minimum someone had to listen. I think about the NYT reporter who came to ANWAR and left changed. Informed. He understood the “Alaskan” position (which is varied, BTW).
The west in general has land issues very different than the east. Western states bargained for mineral rights, water rights, etc. that are critical to the people of those states. Federal decisions can have a disproportionate impact.
In terms of “how we live our lives,” if that is what you mean by “those decisions,” I do see the point. But that was not lost on the Framers. I think some were way to quick to jump on Marty for pointing out the obvious: the more you mandate nation-wide rules for everyone, the more influence the small states will have. Even if done through SCOTUS vs. legislation, small states have more of a say through appointments, right?
Have you considered that the EC makes your opinion on Presidential elections meaningless?
Not only have I considered it, that was actually my point. But I don’t need an amendment. I just need to convince my Californian friends to award EC votes proportionately according to population. Ha ha ha ha.
Marty and bc should be nodding their heads right now.
Sure. So far.
At the moment, a political minority has unwarranted control over the operation of the federal government. Which leaves the majority of the population lacking agency, as regards federal governance.
That depends on the meaning of “political minority” and “unwarranted.” I get that is in your opinion and hence the post about changing the system, because under the system we have, it is warranted and there is a majority in some ways, not others. And while there might be some impact on agency, it is far from complete.
I think states both large and small have a lot to offer and we consider further federalization at our peril. The problems outlined here are fixable but not with the current divisiveness. I don’t think the instinct to move towards pure democracy for the nation is a good idea. COVID has shown how important food production is and a lot of that occurs in smaller states. A lot of different concerns.
bc: Its unfathomable to me to think 26,000 human beings . . .
That was Marty, Sapient. I love to visit the city. I could see myself living in the city for a time and get those that do. I really do. Like you, I’d love to take advantage of the cultural variety of the city. But overall I’d much rather visit.
Iirc the proposed deal is that several (currently) Dem dominated states are very willing* to go to proportional representation IF AND ONLY IF GOP dominated states do likewise AT THE SAME TIME. I distinctly remember calls from the latter to the former to go first while making clear by their demeanor that they themselves have not the least interest to follow. That’s bad faith 101 because the (fully intended) effect would be to skew the (im)balance even further in favor of the GOP.
Unfortunately, I fully expect calls to SCOTUS to declare that mandatory PR to be unconstitutional should the movement succeed and given the current composition of the court it will be done with some BS excuse.
*correct me, if I am wrong but I believe some states even put that into law already, i.e. PR will take effect the moment enough states pass equivalent laws.
Iirc the proposed deal is that several (currently) Dem dominated states are very willing* to go to proportional representation IF AND ONLY IF GOP dominated states do likewise AT THE SAME TIME. I distinctly remember calls from the latter to the former to go first while making clear by their demeanor that they themselves have not the least interest to follow. That’s bad faith 101 because the (fully intended) effect would be to skew the (im)balance even further in favor of the GOP.
Unfortunately, I fully expect calls to SCOTUS to declare that mandatory PR to be unconstitutional should the movement succeed and given the current composition of the court it will be done with some BS excuse.
*correct me, if I am wrong but I believe some states even put that into law already, i.e. PR will take effect the moment enough states pass equivalent laws.
Hartmut:
I’m not sure about the legislative status of the different proposals. I think Trump would have won under any method except for national popular vote. https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2016
And Obama’s victory less grand. Interesting.
Hartmut:
I’m not sure about the legislative status of the different proposals. I think Trump would have won under any method except for national popular vote. https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2016
And Obama’s victory less grand. Interesting.
Grand victories seem a thing of the past anyway.
And even if Jabbabonk had won noentheless, it would have lessened the question of legitimacy at least a bit. He would be no less of a disaster in office, of course.
Also even with national popular vote right out as an option it (PR on the state level) would at least force the campaigns (and the big donors*) to not completely ignore larege swaths of the land.
A rather radical approach would tie the voting weight of a congresscritter to the proportion of the citizens that actually voted for him/her (not voters, citizens of the state/district (s)he comes from). So, low turnout and low margins of victory would massively devalue the voice of the critter. “Ah, Mr.Cowback, you purged 50% of the citizens from the voter roles, only half of those left voted and you won that election by a single (and highly suspicious) vote. So according to our calculations you get 1/8 of a vote in these halls. You also have to wear this badge with that information on your person at all times. Apps we have installed via the backdoors you voted for last session will also put that info into all your emails and phonecalls to remind potential donors etc. of the diminished returns they can expect from bribing..eh..financially appreciating you and your work. Have a nice time here in Congress!”
*the other herd of elephants in the room
Grand victories seem a thing of the past anyway.
And even if Jabbabonk had won noentheless, it would have lessened the question of legitimacy at least a bit. He would be no less of a disaster in office, of course.
Also even with national popular vote right out as an option it (PR on the state level) would at least force the campaigns (and the big donors*) to not completely ignore larege swaths of the land.
A rather radical approach would tie the voting weight of a congresscritter to the proportion of the citizens that actually voted for him/her (not voters, citizens of the state/district (s)he comes from). So, low turnout and low margins of victory would massively devalue the voice of the critter. “Ah, Mr.Cowback, you purged 50% of the citizens from the voter roles, only half of those left voted and you won that election by a single (and highly suspicious) vote. So according to our calculations you get 1/8 of a vote in these halls. You also have to wear this badge with that information on your person at all times. Apps we have installed via the backdoors you voted for last session will also put that info into all your emails and phonecalls to remind potential donors etc. of the diminished returns they can expect from bribing..eh..financially appreciating you and your work. Have a nice time here in Congress!”
*the other herd of elephants in the room
And Obama’s victory less grand. Interesting
Sorry, I’m not sure what this means? I may be missing something, but dealing with students on LINE all day has me a bit fuzzy.
And Obama’s victory less grand. Interesting
Sorry, I’m not sure what this means? I may be missing something, but dealing with students on LINE all day has me a bit fuzzy.
Hartmut,
I thing what you are talking about is the Popular Vote Compact.
The Constitution says that each state is free to choose its electors as it likes. A state entering this compact agrees to have its electoral votes cast in favor of the national popular vote winner, regardless of the outcome in the particular state. This only takes effect when states awith a total of 270 or more electoral college votes join.
So far, sixteen largely blue states, with a total of 196 EV’s, have passed the legislation.
Hartmut,
I thing what you are talking about is the Popular Vote Compact.
The Constitution says that each state is free to choose its electors as it likes. A state entering this compact agrees to have its electoral votes cast in favor of the national popular vote winner, regardless of the outcome in the particular state. This only takes effect when states awith a total of 270 or more electoral college votes join.
So far, sixteen largely blue states, with a total of 196 EV’s, have passed the legislation.
Would both versions actually make a difference as far as the outcome is concerned (apart from electors being discreet numbers so proportional representation would not be exact)?
—
Thinking about it: yes it could because iirc the senators are electors too and they would not be affected by PR and could tip the scales.
Would both versions actually make a difference as far as the outcome is concerned (apart from electors being discreet numbers so proportional representation would not be exact)?
—
Thinking about it: yes it could because iirc the senators are electors too and they would not be affected by PR and could tip the scales.
First – the powers not delegated to the feds by the Constitution are reserved to the states, *or the people*.
There is not a distinct minority in charge, there is a majority of voting districts in this country that prefer GOP policies.
This begs the question, because voting districts are quite often constructed, deliberately, to give minority interests electoral advantage.
As far as rules go, “the rules” that you refer to were themselves changes to the previous rules. And those were changes to the rules before them.
I recognize that you feel strongly about state autonomy. That’s fine, for you. If it doesn’t work for more of the people in the country than it does work for, then it’s entirely legitimate for the rules to be changed.
How to do that in practical terms is profoundly challenging, and it might therefore never happen. But “changing the rules” per se is absolutely a legitimate exercise of self-governance.
That, in fact, is how we got the rules we have now.
I can tell you with confidence that the number of people in MA who give a single solitary crap about what people in TX do is vanishingly small. I have no idea what you are even on about. What do you think people in MA are gonna try to make people in TX do?
The number of people in MA, and not just in MA, however, who are sick of dealing with the obstructive nihilistic anti-government mania of modern conservatism is really freaking large.
And do not by god underestimate the impact of “and then Trump”. That is exhibit A, if any such was even needed, of the utter lack of any sense of plain civic responsibility on the part of conservative America. It renders any claim of a desire to seek compromise or common ground a nullity.
The election of Trump was, frankly, a crossing of a political Rubicon. It will never be forgotten. I’m not talking about revenge here, or any desire to “stick it to” Trump supporters. I’m talking about trust. Trump supporters have demonstrated, above all, their lack of regard for anyone else who lives in this country, and have demonstrated over and over, at length, their sheer delight in pissing all of the rest of us off.
Why the fuck should the rest of us put up with that? Short answer: we won’t.
People who want the rules changed want them changed because they no longer serve a constructive function.
First – the powers not delegated to the feds by the Constitution are reserved to the states, *or the people*.
There is not a distinct minority in charge, there is a majority of voting districts in this country that prefer GOP policies.
This begs the question, because voting districts are quite often constructed, deliberately, to give minority interests electoral advantage.
As far as rules go, “the rules” that you refer to were themselves changes to the previous rules. And those were changes to the rules before them.
I recognize that you feel strongly about state autonomy. That’s fine, for you. If it doesn’t work for more of the people in the country than it does work for, then it’s entirely legitimate for the rules to be changed.
How to do that in practical terms is profoundly challenging, and it might therefore never happen. But “changing the rules” per se is absolutely a legitimate exercise of self-governance.
That, in fact, is how we got the rules we have now.
I can tell you with confidence that the number of people in MA who give a single solitary crap about what people in TX do is vanishingly small. I have no idea what you are even on about. What do you think people in MA are gonna try to make people in TX do?
The number of people in MA, and not just in MA, however, who are sick of dealing with the obstructive nihilistic anti-government mania of modern conservatism is really freaking large.
And do not by god underestimate the impact of “and then Trump”. That is exhibit A, if any such was even needed, of the utter lack of any sense of plain civic responsibility on the part of conservative America. It renders any claim of a desire to seek compromise or common ground a nullity.
The election of Trump was, frankly, a crossing of a political Rubicon. It will never be forgotten. I’m not talking about revenge here, or any desire to “stick it to” Trump supporters. I’m talking about trust. Trump supporters have demonstrated, above all, their lack of regard for anyone else who lives in this country, and have demonstrated over and over, at length, their sheer delight in pissing all of the rest of us off.
Why the fuck should the rest of us put up with that? Short answer: we won’t.
People who want the rules changed want them changed because they no longer serve a constructive function.
Would both versions actually make a difference as far as the outcome is concerned (apart from electors being discreet numbers so proportional representation would not be exact)?
—
Thinking about it: yes it could because iirc the senators are electors too and they would not be affected by PR and could tip the scales.
I’m not sure what you mean by “both versions,” but as far as the second paragraph goes, senators are not electors. They are counted in determining how many electoral votes a state gets, that’s all.
E.g. Maine, where I live, has two members of Congress and the usual complement of two senators, so we get 4 electoral votes.
Maine happens to be one of two states that allocate electors somewhat proportionally (along with Nebraska). The 2 electoral votes representing the two senators go to whoever wins the statewide vote. The 2 representing the two congresscritters go individually to whoever wins each district.
It really doesn’t make a lot of sense unless other states do it the same way, but I didn’t make the rules.
Would both versions actually make a difference as far as the outcome is concerned (apart from electors being discreet numbers so proportional representation would not be exact)?
—
Thinking about it: yes it could because iirc the senators are electors too and they would not be affected by PR and could tip the scales.
I’m not sure what you mean by “both versions,” but as far as the second paragraph goes, senators are not electors. They are counted in determining how many electoral votes a state gets, that’s all.
E.g. Maine, where I live, has two members of Congress and the usual complement of two senators, so we get 4 electoral votes.
Maine happens to be one of two states that allocate electors somewhat proportionally (along with Nebraska). The 2 electoral votes representing the two senators go to whoever wins the statewide vote. The 2 representing the two congresscritters go individually to whoever wins each district.
It really doesn’t make a lot of sense unless other states do it the same way, but I didn’t make the rules.
“I recognize that you feel strongly about state autonomy. That’s fine, for you. If it doesn’t work for more of the people in the country than it does work for, then it’s entirely legitimate for the rules to be changed.”
This is the failure in the logic. We. The States, signed a contract. You dont get change the contract AND require me to go along. If you want to change the contract I get to opt out.
IMO, if the popular vote majority want to change the basic contract, which is what we are discussing not some rules tweaking, then each state should get the opportunity to opt out. Some cant do that reasonably but others could. But a bunch of people in NY and LA and Boston shouldn’t get to unilaterally decide they are now in charge.
The lack of trust you keep talking about works both ways.
“I recognize that you feel strongly about state autonomy. That’s fine, for you. If it doesn’t work for more of the people in the country than it does work for, then it’s entirely legitimate for the rules to be changed.”
This is the failure in the logic. We. The States, signed a contract. You dont get change the contract AND require me to go along. If you want to change the contract I get to opt out.
IMO, if the popular vote majority want to change the basic contract, which is what we are discussing not some rules tweaking, then each state should get the opportunity to opt out. Some cant do that reasonably but others could. But a bunch of people in NY and LA and Boston shouldn’t get to unilaterally decide they are now in charge.
The lack of trust you keep talking about works both ways.
I don’t think the instinct to move towards pure democracy for the nation is a good idea.
FWIW, the only situation where I advocate for “pure democracy” – one person, one vote in the outcome, straight up – is in the election of the POTUS.
It is, uniquely, a national office, representing every person in every part of the country. It should be decided on that basis.
The conditions that made the EC an acceptable compromise – notably, different definitions of who could and could not vote in each state – no longer apply.
I can see the argument for disproportionate representation in e.g. the Senate, although I have my issues with it. “My issues” here being that I’m not sure state boundaries are the best proxy for a given set of interests.
But I don’t see the argument for disproportionate representation at the state level, or in fact for any representation at the state level, for election of the POTUS and VPOTUS. That should be simple popular vote, period.
I don’t think the instinct to move towards pure democracy for the nation is a good idea.
FWIW, the only situation where I advocate for “pure democracy” – one person, one vote in the outcome, straight up – is in the election of the POTUS.
It is, uniquely, a national office, representing every person in every part of the country. It should be decided on that basis.
The conditions that made the EC an acceptable compromise – notably, different definitions of who could and could not vote in each state – no longer apply.
I can see the argument for disproportionate representation in e.g. the Senate, although I have my issues with it. “My issues” here being that I’m not sure state boundaries are the best proxy for a given set of interests.
But I don’t see the argument for disproportionate representation at the state level, or in fact for any representation at the state level, for election of the POTUS and VPOTUS. That should be simple popular vote, period.
You dont get change the contract AND require me to go along. If you want to change the contract I get to opt out.
That’s actually not how democracy works. No one gets their way all the time. That’s necessarily part of the deal. We aren’t each little sovereign countries with a population of one.
But a bunch of people in NY and LA and Boston shouldn’t get to unilaterally decide they are now in charge.
No one is proposing any such thing.
You dont get change the contract AND require me to go along. If you want to change the contract I get to opt out.
That’s actually not how democracy works. No one gets their way all the time. That’s necessarily part of the deal. We aren’t each little sovereign countries with a population of one.
But a bunch of people in NY and LA and Boston shouldn’t get to unilaterally decide they are now in charge.
No one is proposing any such thing.
We. The States, signed a contract. You dont get change the contract AND require me to go along. If you want to change the contract I get to opt out.
Certainly that’s true of some contracts. Other contracts can only be dissolved by mutual consent. And if they include provision for modifications, those do not necessarily void the contract.
One thing the Civil War established is that the US is the latter kind of contract. Once you are in, you don’t get to just walk away. No matter how much you dislike the way things have developed.
We. The States, signed a contract. You dont get change the contract AND require me to go along. If you want to change the contract I get to opt out.
Certainly that’s true of some contracts. Other contracts can only be dissolved by mutual consent. And if they include provision for modifications, those do not necessarily void the contract.
One thing the Civil War established is that the US is the latter kind of contract. Once you are in, you don’t get to just walk away. No matter how much you dislike the way things have developed.
Forgive my each-plural grammar.
Forgive my each-plural grammar.
if the popular vote majority want to change the basic contract, which is what we are discussing not some rules tweaking, then each state should get the opportunity to opt out.
If that’s the only way to sort it out, I have no problem with it.
As a practical matter, it would be very complicated. But other than that I’d find it perhaps regrettable, but not an impediment.
It’s worth noting that in almost all cases, the folks who “signed the contract” are long dead. You didn’t sign it, I didn’t sign it. Nobody alie in the states of TX or MA “signed it”. AK and HI were ’59, before that the most recent examples are from ’12.
When things stop working, it’s time for new things.
The lack of trust you keep talking about works both ways.
No doubt.
“My side” gave “your side” Bill Clinton and Obama. I get that you don’t like either guy, but they were, minimally, sensible, competent executives.
“Your side” coughs up W and Trump.
You tell me who is going the extra mile.
if the popular vote majority want to change the basic contract, which is what we are discussing not some rules tweaking, then each state should get the opportunity to opt out.
If that’s the only way to sort it out, I have no problem with it.
As a practical matter, it would be very complicated. But other than that I’d find it perhaps regrettable, but not an impediment.
It’s worth noting that in almost all cases, the folks who “signed the contract” are long dead. You didn’t sign it, I didn’t sign it. Nobody alie in the states of TX or MA “signed it”. AK and HI were ’59, before that the most recent examples are from ’12.
When things stop working, it’s time for new things.
The lack of trust you keep talking about works both ways.
No doubt.
“My side” gave “your side” Bill Clinton and Obama. I get that you don’t like either guy, but they were, minimally, sensible, competent executives.
“Your side” coughs up W and Trump.
You tell me who is going the extra mile.
I’m still curious what the hell it is that all of the people in NYC, LA, and Boston are gonna make people in TX do.
bc makes some sensible points about land management etc. I get those concerns. They’re reasonable and not based on some weird phobia about population density, or whatever else is hiding under Marty’s bed. I don’t mean to be dismissive, you (Marty) just gone on at length here about somebody somewhere “making people in TX” do something or other.
It’s vague, and impossible to discuss because it’s vague. If you want to talk about actual issues of concern, have at it. If it’s all bogeymen, there’s no conversation to be had.
I get that “you don’t want it”. I have no idea what it is you don’t want.
I’m still curious what the hell it is that all of the people in NYC, LA, and Boston are gonna make people in TX do.
bc makes some sensible points about land management etc. I get those concerns. They’re reasonable and not based on some weird phobia about population density, or whatever else is hiding under Marty’s bed. I don’t mean to be dismissive, you (Marty) just gone on at length here about somebody somewhere “making people in TX” do something or other.
It’s vague, and impossible to discuss because it’s vague. If you want to talk about actual issues of concern, have at it. If it’s all bogeymen, there’s no conversation to be had.
I get that “you don’t want it”. I have no idea what it is you don’t want.
“My side” gave “your side” Bill Clinton and Obama. I get that you don’t like either guy, but they were, minimally, sensible, competent executives.
And Clinton left office leaving a budget surplus (which Republicans claim to care about, until it suits them not to) and Obama left office leaving an economy on an upward trajectory (despite systemic problems) which continued unchanged until the pandemic, even though Trump and the Republicans chose to ignore or deny this. So Marty’s fear that the evil Dems want to damage his family’s future prospects looks incomprehensible, unless you look at the rightwing propaganda machine which is solely concerned to keep the money flowing into their and their backers’ coffers, and the only way to do that is to lie about the Dems to stop them gaining power and trying to equalise things a bit, to the benefit of e.g. Marty and his family.
I know I haven’t kept up with all the facts, as you US types do, and I know nothing about economics, but is any of this (about Clinton and Obama principally) wrong?
“My side” gave “your side” Bill Clinton and Obama. I get that you don’t like either guy, but they were, minimally, sensible, competent executives.
And Clinton left office leaving a budget surplus (which Republicans claim to care about, until it suits them not to) and Obama left office leaving an economy on an upward trajectory (despite systemic problems) which continued unchanged until the pandemic, even though Trump and the Republicans chose to ignore or deny this. So Marty’s fear that the evil Dems want to damage his family’s future prospects looks incomprehensible, unless you look at the rightwing propaganda machine which is solely concerned to keep the money flowing into their and their backers’ coffers, and the only way to do that is to lie about the Dems to stop them gaining power and trying to equalise things a bit, to the benefit of e.g. Marty and his family.
I know I haven’t kept up with all the facts, as you US types do, and I know nothing about economics, but is any of this (about Clinton and Obama principally) wrong?
I’m still curious what the hell it is that all of the people in NYC, LA, and Boston are gonna make people in TX do.
Short answer:
1) force them not to force rape victims to bear the results of their rape.
2) force them to allow immigrants to become citizens and vote.
No doubt there are more indignities in prospect. (And people in Texas forcing those in NYC, etc. to do things their way don’t count as coercion, of course.)
I’m still curious what the hell it is that all of the people in NYC, LA, and Boston are gonna make people in TX do.
Short answer:
1) force them not to force rape victims to bear the results of their rape.
2) force them to allow immigrants to become citizens and vote.
No doubt there are more indignities in prospect. (And people in Texas forcing those in NYC, etc. to do things their way don’t count as coercion, of course.)
Sorry, I’m not sure what this means?
lj: By “less grand,” I meant: 1) The election of the first African American president was grand period regardless of political persuasion, IMHO; 2) Obama had a very decent EC victory (I think anything over 300 is a good win and he got 332); and (for the “would have been less grand”) 3) he actually would have lost to Romney under Main and Nebraska’s system (274/264) or under a congressional district majority system (2 for overall popular vote in a state and PR for the other CD’s) by 286/252. His 332/206 victory was that big due to the current rules.
Sorry, I’m not sure what this means?
lj: By “less grand,” I meant: 1) The election of the first African American president was grand period regardless of political persuasion, IMHO; 2) Obama had a very decent EC victory (I think anything over 300 is a good win and he got 332); and (for the “would have been less grand”) 3) he actually would have lost to Romney under Main and Nebraska’s system (274/264) or under a congressional district majority system (2 for overall popular vote in a state and PR for the other CD’s) by 286/252. His 332/206 victory was that big due to the current rules.
His 332/206 victory was that big due to the current rules.
IIRC, his campaign strategy was geared toward those rules. So it’s a little circular.
His 332/206 victory was that big due to the current rules.
IIRC, his campaign strategy was geared toward those rules. So it’s a little circular.
W was as good as Clinton, Obama was bad in a bunch of ways but was a competent politician Trump is certainly an outlier but now you are offering Biden. Trend is bad overall.
russell, I dont want to live in a country that rewards doing nothing, that pays for everything and requires no responsibility from its citizens. That’s telling me how to live. The Democratic party wantscgauranteed everything, down to an income and childcare. No person is responsible for themself.
I dont know what you are for either in any detail. Nor are there specific policies we are discussing at this point.
I do know what is being tossed into the pot by Democratic candidates, which is the government pays for everything and it leaves you a little pocket change out of your check. That’s barely an exaggeration.
That model exerts a tremendous amount of control over your life. Not my view of the Ameriijcan dream.
W was as good as Clinton, Obama was bad in a bunch of ways but was a competent politician Trump is certainly an outlier but now you are offering Biden. Trend is bad overall.
russell, I dont want to live in a country that rewards doing nothing, that pays for everything and requires no responsibility from its citizens. That’s telling me how to live. The Democratic party wantscgauranteed everything, down to an income and childcare. No person is responsible for themself.
I dont know what you are for either in any detail. Nor are there specific policies we are discussing at this point.
I do know what is being tossed into the pot by Democratic candidates, which is the government pays for everything and it leaves you a little pocket change out of your check. That’s barely an exaggeration.
That model exerts a tremendous amount of control over your life. Not my view of the Ameriijcan dream.
W was as good as Clinton
There’s really no point in further discussion after this.
W was as good as Clinton
There’s really no point in further discussion after this.
No doubt there are more indignities in prospect. (And people in Texas forcing those in NYC, etc. to do things their way don’t count as coercion, of course.)
This, a thousand times.
For the record, I’m pretty sure that regardless of Marty’s own self-certified lack of homophobia, the full acceptance of gay and trans people in civic life is one of the things people in places like TX don’t want those hobgoblins from MA, CA, and NY forcing them into.
And that the converse doesn’t count as coercion is tots justified by the fact that a bunch of straight white males, a lot of them slaveowners, made a deal 200+ years ago, that can only be changed….well, when?
By amending the Constitution, for one thing. And states that don’t like amendments don’t get to “opt out.” Talk about rewriting the contract…..
No doubt there are more indignities in prospect. (And people in Texas forcing those in NYC, etc. to do things their way don’t count as coercion, of course.)
This, a thousand times.
For the record, I’m pretty sure that regardless of Marty’s own self-certified lack of homophobia, the full acceptance of gay and trans people in civic life is one of the things people in places like TX don’t want those hobgoblins from MA, CA, and NY forcing them into.
And that the converse doesn’t count as coercion is tots justified by the fact that a bunch of straight white males, a lot of them slaveowners, made a deal 200+ years ago, that can only be changed….well, when?
By amending the Constitution, for one thing. And states that don’t like amendments don’t get to “opt out.” Talk about rewriting the contract…..
I dont want to live in a country….
Bon voyage.
I dont want to live in a country….
Bon voyage.
It is, uniquely, a national office, representing every person in every part of the country . .
“My issues” here being that I’m not sure state boundaries are the best proxy for a given set of interests.
You know, the best argument IMHO for moving beyond the EC and the indirect election of the President is that we have moved on and overcome the differences we had at the founding. Undoubtedly we have moved in a common direction in many ways. Slavery is abolished, language and accent are much more unified, the economy is much more nationally based, people routinely move to other states, etc. I could comfortably live almost anywhere in the country.
But your premise, if I understand it correctly, is not doing away with the rules for that reason but for a purely political one. It is the negative not the positive. That is why I think it is dangerous.
Also, I think states still mean something and have something to contribute. The differences in systems still exist and frankly should be encouraged to see what works best. Federalism’s monolithic sway limits creativity.
I’ve lived only out west, California, Utah, Washington, Alaska. There are definitely differences going on there.
It is, uniquely, a national office, representing every person in every part of the country . .
“My issues” here being that I’m not sure state boundaries are the best proxy for a given set of interests.
You know, the best argument IMHO for moving beyond the EC and the indirect election of the President is that we have moved on and overcome the differences we had at the founding. Undoubtedly we have moved in a common direction in many ways. Slavery is abolished, language and accent are much more unified, the economy is much more nationally based, people routinely move to other states, etc. I could comfortably live almost anywhere in the country.
But your premise, if I understand it correctly, is not doing away with the rules for that reason but for a purely political one. It is the negative not the positive. That is why I think it is dangerous.
Also, I think states still mean something and have something to contribute. The differences in systems still exist and frankly should be encouraged to see what works best. Federalism’s monolithic sway limits creativity.
I’ve lived only out west, California, Utah, Washington, Alaska. There are definitely differences going on there.
There’s really no point in further discussion after this.
When was there ever a point? 😉
Though I should take my own advice more often….
There’s really no point in further discussion after this.
When was there ever a point? 😉
Though I should take my own advice more often….
No person is responsible for themself.
LOL. the GOP is just fine with handouts and supports.
unless… do you think they’re gonna run on killing Medicare, Medicaid, SS, the VA ? are they going to run on killing farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, oil subsidies?
no?
face it, you just don’t like it when the wrong people get support.
No person is responsible for themself.
LOL. the GOP is just fine with handouts and supports.
unless… do you think they’re gonna run on killing Medicare, Medicaid, SS, the VA ? are they going to run on killing farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, oil subsidies?
no?
face it, you just don’t like it when the wrong people get support.
IIRC, his campaign strategy was geared toward those rules. So it’s a little circular.
Yes, and the website actually notes that
Playing by the Rules
It is important to note that the actual results of a real-world election might be significantly different than how the numbers look applying new methodologies after-the-fact. Campaigns make strategic and tactical decisions based on the rules in place. For example, the Obama campaign expended resources in an ultimately successful bid to win one of Nebraska’s electoral votes in 2008. They would not have made the effort except for the allocation method used there. Additionally, voter turnout could shift in response to where battlegrounds might be with new rules.
IIRC, his campaign strategy was geared toward those rules. So it’s a little circular.
Yes, and the website actually notes that
Playing by the Rules
It is important to note that the actual results of a real-world election might be significantly different than how the numbers look applying new methodologies after-the-fact. Campaigns make strategic and tactical decisions based on the rules in place. For example, the Obama campaign expended resources in an ultimately successful bid to win one of Nebraska’s electoral votes in 2008. They would not have made the effort except for the allocation method used there. Additionally, voter turnout could shift in response to where battlegrounds might be with new rules.
I would add to cleek’s list the robust support, one way or another, for lifelong education.
In GOP world, the vast majority of people are supposed to be “responsible for themself” by holding three part-time minimum-wage jobs with no health insurance. And the minimum wage should be eliminated at the earliest possible opportunity, because things are too damned cushy at the moment.
I would add to cleek’s list the robust support, one way or another, for lifelong education.
In GOP world, the vast majority of people are supposed to be “responsible for themself” by holding three part-time minimum-wage jobs with no health insurance. And the minimum wage should be eliminated at the earliest possible opportunity, because things are too damned cushy at the moment.
“which is the government pays for everything and it leaves you a little pocket change out of your check. That’s barely an exaggeration.”
It’s barely sentient is what it is.
I’m nostalgic for Dwight Eisenhower. 93% top marginal tax rate, twenty-some or more personal tax brackets, the golden age of high and stable American growth.
True, John Boehner wept nostalgically at the part where we return to pre-Civil Rights, but he’s from Cincinnati.
True, Jonas Salk said “fuck it, I’m not going to develop a polio vaccine. It’s not worth my time. I quit.”
But we limped along inside our iron lungs and became somebody.
“which is the government pays for everything and it leaves you a little pocket change out of your check. That’s barely an exaggeration.”
It’s barely sentient is what it is.
I’m nostalgic for Dwight Eisenhower. 93% top marginal tax rate, twenty-some or more personal tax brackets, the golden age of high and stable American growth.
True, John Boehner wept nostalgically at the part where we return to pre-Civil Rights, but he’s from Cincinnati.
True, Jonas Salk said “fuck it, I’m not going to develop a polio vaccine. It’s not worth my time. I quit.”
But we limped along inside our iron lungs and became somebody.
i’m nostalgic for the days when a headline like “Special Report: Former Labradoodle breeder was tapped to lead U.S. pandemic task force” would have only been found in The Onion’s reject pile.
but, delusions of tyranny rule us all.
i’m nostalgic for the days when a headline like “Special Report: Former Labradoodle breeder was tapped to lead U.S. pandemic task force” would have only been found in The Onion’s reject pile.
but, delusions of tyranny rule us all.
I dont want to live in a country that rewards doing nothing, that pays for everything and requires no responsibility from its citizens.
What I take away from this is that you are opposed to expanding the welfare state. That’s a reasonable objection, thank you for answering.
My own position on this, as always, is that the solution to the welfare state in an economy organized on the capitalist model is (a) increased distribution of ownership, and (b) increased engagement of labor in corporate governance.
In general, neither of the above are palatable to conservatives. So, a problem.
If we want to put the capitalist model on the table, I’m fine with that also, but I doubt it’s on offer.
the best argument IMHO for moving beyond the EC and the indirect election of the President is that we have moved on and overcome the differences we had at the founding
That is, as far as I can tell, exactly the position I’ve expressed.
Also, I think states still mean something and have something to contribute.
Yes, I do as well.
I’m not arguing for the abolition of the states, or for eliminating state and local government.
As far as specifics, in this thread, I’ve advocated for direct election of the POTUS and VPOTUS, and I’ve questioned whether the Senate is actually an effective vehicle for ensuring that minority interests and points of view have an effective voice.
People in upstate NY probably have more in common with people in downstate OH, or central PA, than they do with people in the NYC metro area. Common areas of interest seem, to me, to be more strongly associated with particular Congressional districts – which may or may not be geographically contiguous – than they are with state borders.
At least, at this point in time. At the founding, that was arguably less so, but it is so now.
What would make more sense to me would be some way of building on the existing practice of coalitions of interest in the House to create a way of giving those kinds of minority positions greater agency.
I have no idea what the implementation of that would look like, it just seems more sensible than pretending that Two People From Iowa represent the interests of The People Of Iowa, because not everybody in IA is a farmer. Like not everyone in NY lives in NYC.
I don’t disagree that there is value in making sure that the interests of people who represent smaller populations within the country as a whole are not overrun. I just don’t think the Senate is a particularly good way to do it.
In general, I’m in favor of the federal government representing the people of the United States, rather than the states per se.
I dont want to live in a country that rewards doing nothing, that pays for everything and requires no responsibility from its citizens.
What I take away from this is that you are opposed to expanding the welfare state. That’s a reasonable objection, thank you for answering.
My own position on this, as always, is that the solution to the welfare state in an economy organized on the capitalist model is (a) increased distribution of ownership, and (b) increased engagement of labor in corporate governance.
In general, neither of the above are palatable to conservatives. So, a problem.
If we want to put the capitalist model on the table, I’m fine with that also, but I doubt it’s on offer.
the best argument IMHO for moving beyond the EC and the indirect election of the President is that we have moved on and overcome the differences we had at the founding
That is, as far as I can tell, exactly the position I’ve expressed.
Also, I think states still mean something and have something to contribute.
Yes, I do as well.
I’m not arguing for the abolition of the states, or for eliminating state and local government.
As far as specifics, in this thread, I’ve advocated for direct election of the POTUS and VPOTUS, and I’ve questioned whether the Senate is actually an effective vehicle for ensuring that minority interests and points of view have an effective voice.
People in upstate NY probably have more in common with people in downstate OH, or central PA, than they do with people in the NYC metro area. Common areas of interest seem, to me, to be more strongly associated with particular Congressional districts – which may or may not be geographically contiguous – than they are with state borders.
At least, at this point in time. At the founding, that was arguably less so, but it is so now.
What would make more sense to me would be some way of building on the existing practice of coalitions of interest in the House to create a way of giving those kinds of minority positions greater agency.
I have no idea what the implementation of that would look like, it just seems more sensible than pretending that Two People From Iowa represent the interests of The People Of Iowa, because not everybody in IA is a farmer. Like not everyone in NY lives in NYC.
I don’t disagree that there is value in making sure that the interests of people who represent smaller populations within the country as a whole are not overrun. I just don’t think the Senate is a particularly good way to do it.
In general, I’m in favor of the federal government representing the people of the United States, rather than the states per se.
Another view on what to reset.
Stand back, he may be asymptomatic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLcNStHTDjM
Another view on what to reset.
Stand back, he may be asymptomatic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLcNStHTDjM
Republicans, or conservatives, in general support things that create business opportunity because when the economy is supported then people have opportunity to achieve.
Democrats, in general, support paying individual people because when everybody has money then the economy will take care of itself.
Both of those things in balance are good.
Either by itself creates negative incentives that make things worse over time.
I’m for and against lots of things.
Socially I’m pretty liberal. A child of the sixties, I think Roe v Wade got it about right, but I dont get too upset over more access, late third term abortions seem problematic but dont happen a lot. I couldnt care less who you are in a relationship with as long as you are happy with them. I am for broader drug legalization than most people on either side. I think laws protecting me from myself are wrong but have learned to live with it. I dont think Affirmative action helps much but ok. I prefer programs based on economic status, including needs based access to Medicare plus, medicare leaves something to be desired in some areas. The safety net should be just that, if you dont needs base it it isnt a safety net.
I believe in voter id but dont understand the fuss either way. I know poor people, they all have ids, mostly to buy cigarettes or alcohol, or drive. I just dont understand the argument either way. If you want to require it you have to provide the option of a free id for people who dont. It wont be expensive, most people have one.
Economically I’m pretty conservative. Get a job, work, support yourself, use the safety net as little as possible. Keep the government out of the economy except in crisis or transition as much as possible.
Make the government make a budget and explain what money is spent on , use it for that until the next budget cycle.
Dont go to war. Like thou shalt not kill it should take an imminent threat to break that one.
I dont think most business owners are bad nor do I believe most workers are lazy.
I dont hate Democrats, I intensely dislike some Democratic politicians, and quite a few Republican politicians. In fact, I’m in general not find of people who lie and self aggrandize for a living. The definition of a politician.
Republicans, or conservatives, in general support things that create business opportunity because when the economy is supported then people have opportunity to achieve.
Democrats, in general, support paying individual people because when everybody has money then the economy will take care of itself.
Both of those things in balance are good.
Either by itself creates negative incentives that make things worse over time.
I’m for and against lots of things.
Socially I’m pretty liberal. A child of the sixties, I think Roe v Wade got it about right, but I dont get too upset over more access, late third term abortions seem problematic but dont happen a lot. I couldnt care less who you are in a relationship with as long as you are happy with them. I am for broader drug legalization than most people on either side. I think laws protecting me from myself are wrong but have learned to live with it. I dont think Affirmative action helps much but ok. I prefer programs based on economic status, including needs based access to Medicare plus, medicare leaves something to be desired in some areas. The safety net should be just that, if you dont needs base it it isnt a safety net.
I believe in voter id but dont understand the fuss either way. I know poor people, they all have ids, mostly to buy cigarettes or alcohol, or drive. I just dont understand the argument either way. If you want to require it you have to provide the option of a free id for people who dont. It wont be expensive, most people have one.
Economically I’m pretty conservative. Get a job, work, support yourself, use the safety net as little as possible. Keep the government out of the economy except in crisis or transition as much as possible.
Make the government make a budget and explain what money is spent on , use it for that until the next budget cycle.
Dont go to war. Like thou shalt not kill it should take an imminent threat to break that one.
I dont think most business owners are bad nor do I believe most workers are lazy.
I dont hate Democrats, I intensely dislike some Democratic politicians, and quite a few Republican politicians. In fact, I’m in general not find of people who lie and self aggrandize for a living. The definition of a politician.
That was mostly for cleek so you can actually know what I believe. As far as the right people getting stuff, I believe in most government programs being color blind, if they truly are then the benefits get allocated across racial lines in the same percentages as the problem it’s meant to solve exist.
That was mostly for cleek so you can actually know what I believe. As far as the right people getting stuff, I believe in most government programs being color blind, if they truly are then the benefits get allocated across racial lines in the same percentages as the problem it’s meant to solve exist.
bc,
Correct me if I’m wrong. When places like Alaska or Nevada or Colorado were granted statehood by the rest of “us”, they accepted it on the terms “we” offered — including such provisions as the federal government (“us”) reserving ownership of certain territory within their borders.
A clear example of “us” telling them “how to live”, no doubt. But part of the original “contract”, right? We (which includes “them”, now) can reason together about whether or how to amend those “contracts”, if we can get die-hard originalists like Marty to agree.
–TP
bc,
Correct me if I’m wrong. When places like Alaska or Nevada or Colorado were granted statehood by the rest of “us”, they accepted it on the terms “we” offered — including such provisions as the federal government (“us”) reserving ownership of certain territory within their borders.
A clear example of “us” telling them “how to live”, no doubt. But part of the original “contract”, right? We (which includes “them”, now) can reason together about whether or how to amend those “contracts”, if we can get die-hard originalists like Marty to agree.
–TP
I know poor people, they all have ids, mostly to buy cigarettes or alcohol, or drive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html
I know poor people, they all have ids, mostly to buy cigarettes or alcohol, or drive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html
Mostly, I think voter ID addresses a non-problem. But I don’t really have a philosophical problem with it.
What I do have is a practical implementation problem. Let’s say you wish to register to vote. How do you prove you are eligible? Maybe you have a birth certificate, to demonstrate that you are a citizen. But is it yours? There’s no photo (and it would be useless if there was). There are no fingerprints. There’s no DNA record.
So, is it really you? And how do you prove it? Because if you can’t, what is that ID actually accomplishing? At most, once you have it, it might make it hard to vote twice . . . assuming you vote in person both times. But beyond that? Not seeing much.
Mostly, I think voter ID addresses a non-problem. But I don’t really have a philosophical problem with it.
What I do have is a practical implementation problem. Let’s say you wish to register to vote. How do you prove you are eligible? Maybe you have a birth certificate, to demonstrate that you are a citizen. But is it yours? There’s no photo (and it would be useless if there was). There are no fingerprints. There’s no DNA record.
So, is it really you? And how do you prove it? Because if you can’t, what is that ID actually accomplishing? At most, once you have it, it might make it hard to vote twice . . . assuming you vote in person both times. But beyond that? Not seeing much.
I’m for and against lots of things.
That’s all good.
As things stand now, the senior Senator from KY, which has 1.35% of the population of the United States, was able to prevent an overwhelmingly popular POTUS from nominating a SCOTUS justice, bottle up any legislation that is unpalatable to his sponsors, jam a generation of numbskull legal ideologues to the federal bench, and in general skew the operation of the federal government in directions that *are not* supported by the majority of the people who live here.
That is not acceptable. Period. Full stop.
You’re basically a good guy, Marty, I think most people here would agree with that. That’s not enough.
I’m for and against lots of things.
That’s all good.
As things stand now, the senior Senator from KY, which has 1.35% of the population of the United States, was able to prevent an overwhelmingly popular POTUS from nominating a SCOTUS justice, bottle up any legislation that is unpalatable to his sponsors, jam a generation of numbskull legal ideologues to the federal bench, and in general skew the operation of the federal government in directions that *are not* supported by the majority of the people who live here.
That is not acceptable. Period. Full stop.
You’re basically a good guy, Marty, I think most people here would agree with that. That’s not enough.
“He breeds LABrodoodle’s”
Trump: “So, experience in a laboratory. Sign him up and put him in charge. A regula Dr. Frankenstein is exactly what we need.”
“Give the part-time Jiffy Lube guy, who was second in line for the job, the EPA portfolio. He knows where all the storm drains are.”
“He breeds LABrodoodle’s”
Trump: “So, experience in a laboratory. Sign him up and put him in charge. A regula Dr. Frankenstein is exactly what we need.”
“Give the part-time Jiffy Lube guy, who was second in line for the job, the EPA portfolio. He knows where all the storm drains are.”
I have to say that Merrick Garland is pretty weak tea. Schumer would have done the same thing in reverse, any reference to the past is knowingly ignoring the decay of how things work in the Senate. Each step in lessening the rules begets the next.
And a Senate majority allowed that, which represents a lot more than 1.35% of the people in the country. He just happened to be in the chair.
I have to say that Merrick Garland is pretty weak tea. Schumer would have done the same thing in reverse, any reference to the past is knowingly ignoring the decay of how things work in the Senate. Each step in lessening the rules begets the next.
And a Senate majority allowed that, which represents a lot more than 1.35% of the people in the country. He just happened to be in the chair.
the problem with voter ID laws is that a) everybody knows what they’re for and b) the people who write them are on record telling us we were right about the first point.
they’re sold as a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist but their fundamental purpose is to disenfranchise people who might vote for Dems.
it deserves to be opposed on those grounds.
—
but, Marty, i have very little problem with anything you wrote. and i agree with essentially all of it.
our big disagreements are really about the shape and elasticity of the safety net. i want it to be a big wider and a little more forgiving. and i don’t think that really affects anyone’s liberties.
most won’t, but yes, there are people who will abuse the system and will choose it over working. but i think we need to accept that some of those people aren’t really the job-holding type. and, lest i come off sounding like some Calvinist hard-ass here: i’m thinking about people in my own extended family – people who aren’t dumb, but are just constitutionally not up for the rigors of showing up on time, sober and ready to be productive. i’d rather give them enough to get by on, and help them so that maybe someday they can find a way to support themselves. no hard deadlines, no threats of impending starvation, etc.. the alternative is to toss them on the street with a stern lecture about bootstraps or whatever. and that sounds like a terrible way to run a country.
that’s an extreme example, yes.
the problem with voter ID laws is that a) everybody knows what they’re for and b) the people who write them are on record telling us we were right about the first point.
they’re sold as a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist but their fundamental purpose is to disenfranchise people who might vote for Dems.
it deserves to be opposed on those grounds.
—
but, Marty, i have very little problem with anything you wrote. and i agree with essentially all of it.
our big disagreements are really about the shape and elasticity of the safety net. i want it to be a big wider and a little more forgiving. and i don’t think that really affects anyone’s liberties.
most won’t, but yes, there are people who will abuse the system and will choose it over working. but i think we need to accept that some of those people aren’t really the job-holding type. and, lest i come off sounding like some Calvinist hard-ass here: i’m thinking about people in my own extended family – people who aren’t dumb, but are just constitutionally not up for the rigors of showing up on time, sober and ready to be productive. i’d rather give them enough to get by on, and help them so that maybe someday they can find a way to support themselves. no hard deadlines, no threats of impending starvation, etc.. the alternative is to toss them on the street with a stern lecture about bootstraps or whatever. and that sounds like a terrible way to run a country.
that’s an extreme example, yes.
Schumer would have done the same thing in reverse
Evidence? Seriously, what leads you to think that (prior to McConnell’s stunt) Schumer would have done the same thing?
Schumer would have done the same thing in reverse
Evidence? Seriously, what leads you to think that (prior to McConnell’s stunt) Schumer would have done the same thing?
bc,
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Not exactly. Several things stand out: 1) the older states have much less restriction in terms of national lands. Frex, I can’t fly straight south out of my home town in Alaska to hunt without going through a military MOA that is the size of a small state or go a LOT of places without going on federal land. And Alaskans typically use the land more (are more outdoorsy) than the rest of us. 2) Alaska’s contract included 2 senators, so yes “us” telling them “how to live” included input from those two; and 3) Alaska’s contract included the right to 90% of the royalties off of federal lands. So can Alaska force the feds to open up ANWR? I think the answer is yes, yet “us” have told “them” no for a long time.
There are obviously benefits too. Alaska as I know it couldn’t exist without federal funds. But part of the deal was input via the system we have in exchange for taking over much of the aspects of governance.
bc,
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Not exactly. Several things stand out: 1) the older states have much less restriction in terms of national lands. Frex, I can’t fly straight south out of my home town in Alaska to hunt without going through a military MOA that is the size of a small state or go a LOT of places without going on federal land. And Alaskans typically use the land more (are more outdoorsy) than the rest of us. 2) Alaska’s contract included 2 senators, so yes “us” telling them “how to live” included input from those two; and 3) Alaska’s contract included the right to 90% of the royalties off of federal lands. So can Alaska force the feds to open up ANWR? I think the answer is yes, yet “us” have told “them” no for a long time.
There are obviously benefits too. Alaska as I know it couldn’t exist without federal funds. But part of the deal was input via the system we have in exchange for taking over much of the aspects of governance.
cleek, The problem with voter id at this point is there are a growing number of people essentially going wtf, why shouldnt you have to prove who you are?
Despite the I’ll intention of the politicians it is an issue that lots of people will support because if you dont want to prove who you are then something tricky musty be going on.
I’m as confident as you that it’s not solving a meaningful problem, I also dont see why it is a bad thing. The hardest problems to solve are the ones simply based on distrusting the motives of the other group.
cleek, The problem with voter id at this point is there are a growing number of people essentially going wtf, why shouldnt you have to prove who you are?
Despite the I’ll intention of the politicians it is an issue that lots of people will support because if you dont want to prove who you are then something tricky musty be going on.
I’m as confident as you that it’s not solving a meaningful problem, I also dont see why it is a bad thing. The hardest problems to solve are the ones simply based on distrusting the motives of the other group.
bc: 1) the older states have much less restriction in terms of national lands.
So what? I mean, maybe it’s unfair, but what’s “unfair” got to do with contracts? Two Senators per state seems “unfair” to me, but I hear that’s part of the “contract” also too.
–TP
bc: 1) the older states have much less restriction in terms of national lands.
So what? I mean, maybe it’s unfair, but what’s “unfair” got to do with contracts? Two Senators per state seems “unfair” to me, but I hear that’s part of the “contract” also too.
–TP
Marty: Schumer would have done the same thing in reverse
Hypothetical much, Marty?
–TP
Marty: Schumer would have done the same thing in reverse
Hypothetical much, Marty?
–TP
That’s not a hypothetical, it’s an opinion based on how the Dems bypassed rules to pass the ACA and stopped requiring cloture for judges. But is an opinion.
That’s not a hypothetical, it’s an opinion based on how the Dems bypassed rules to pass the ACA and stopped requiring cloture for judges. But is an opinion.
I have to say that Merrick Garland is pretty weak tea.
I have to say that I don’t think you have any idea how wrong you are about this. The measure of how “weak” the tea is, is how it was received by people who object to it.
It was fncking outrageous.
And “references to the past” in this case are what you have been calling “the rules”.
And for the record, the “Senate majority” represents less than half the population of the country.
I don’t think you’re getting what we’re saying here. Minority interests deserve a voice. Minority interests do not deserve to consistently and deliberately thwart majority interests at any opportunity they can grab.
That’s not sustainable. And, therefore, one way or another, it won’t be sustained.
You can only keep pissing people off for so long. That was the big Tea Party thing, right? We’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna put up with it anymore?
Well, we’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna put up with it anymore. And there are a lot of us.
I have to say that Merrick Garland is pretty weak tea.
I have to say that I don’t think you have any idea how wrong you are about this. The measure of how “weak” the tea is, is how it was received by people who object to it.
It was fncking outrageous.
And “references to the past” in this case are what you have been calling “the rules”.
And for the record, the “Senate majority” represents less than half the population of the country.
I don’t think you’re getting what we’re saying here. Minority interests deserve a voice. Minority interests do not deserve to consistently and deliberately thwart majority interests at any opportunity they can grab.
That’s not sustainable. And, therefore, one way or another, it won’t be sustained.
You can only keep pissing people off for so long. That was the big Tea Party thing, right? We’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna put up with it anymore?
Well, we’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna put up with it anymore. And there are a lot of us.
The problem with voter id at this point
The problem with voter ID at this point is that the (R) party is plainly and transparently using it as a way to keep people who would not vote for them from voting.
By “plainly and transparently” I mean that representatives of the (R) party have stated this publicly.
Quit freaking doing that and maybe people will take the concerns about “voter fraud” more seriously. Right now it’s laughable.
the older states have much less restriction in terms of national lands
Not for nothing, but a hell of a lot of people in MA make a living from fishing. It’s something like $4.4B and 83,000 jobs, just in MA.
The feds regularly tell fishermen what they can catch, how much of it they can catch, and when they can catch it.
It sucks, and everybody bitches about it. It’s as deep a tradition here as ranching or farming or whatever else is in other parts of the country.
People have been fishing the North Atlantic from this area for about 500 years. But nobody gets all “F this, we’re gonna leave the country or start shooting people” about it.
We just freaking deal.
So while I appreciate the issues with federal land in Western states, my sympathy is tempered by the fact that we all put with stuff like that.
The problem with voter id at this point
The problem with voter ID at this point is that the (R) party is plainly and transparently using it as a way to keep people who would not vote for them from voting.
By “plainly and transparently” I mean that representatives of the (R) party have stated this publicly.
Quit freaking doing that and maybe people will take the concerns about “voter fraud” more seriously. Right now it’s laughable.
the older states have much less restriction in terms of national lands
Not for nothing, but a hell of a lot of people in MA make a living from fishing. It’s something like $4.4B and 83,000 jobs, just in MA.
The feds regularly tell fishermen what they can catch, how much of it they can catch, and when they can catch it.
It sucks, and everybody bitches about it. It’s as deep a tradition here as ranching or farming or whatever else is in other parts of the country.
People have been fishing the North Atlantic from this area for about 500 years. But nobody gets all “F this, we’re gonna leave the country or start shooting people” about it.
We just freaking deal.
So while I appreciate the issues with federal land in Western states, my sympathy is tempered by the fact that we all put with stuff like that.
if you dont want to prove who you are then something tricky musty be going on
ASSUMING that there is some reasonable criteria for what constitutes “proof”. But if, for example, a hunting license does, but a student ID doesn’t? What are your (objective!) criteria for which kinds of IDs count and which ones don’t work?
Take an obvious case. I could use my driver’s license. But what did I have to do to get one of those? What proof of identity does the DMV accept for issuing a license? And what was required to get that proof? How is that different from the proofs required for other kinds of ID, which may or may not be acceptable?
if you dont want to prove who you are then something tricky musty be going on
ASSUMING that there is some reasonable criteria for what constitutes “proof”. But if, for example, a hunting license does, but a student ID doesn’t? What are your (objective!) criteria for which kinds of IDs count and which ones don’t work?
Take an obvious case. I could use my driver’s license. But what did I have to do to get one of those? What proof of identity does the DMV accept for issuing a license? And what was required to get that proof? How is that different from the proofs required for other kinds of ID, which may or may not be acceptable?
Schumer would have done the same thing in reverse…
Utter rot, IMO.
Schumer would have done the same thing in reverse…
Utter rot, IMO.
Russell: The feds regularly tell fishermen what they can catch, how much of it they can catch, and when they can catch it.
I would add: the feds do that mainly to protect the fishermen from themselves. Left to their own capitalist, entrepreneurial “initiative”, fishermen would soon catch ALL the fish, and next generation be damned. Left strictly to state regulation, MA fishermen could easily end up shooting at NH and ME fishermen (or more likely vice versa).
Protecting people from themselves is of course anathema to True Scotsmen, and conserving the fishery anathema to “conservatives”.
–TP
Russell: The feds regularly tell fishermen what they can catch, how much of it they can catch, and when they can catch it.
I would add: the feds do that mainly to protect the fishermen from themselves. Left to their own capitalist, entrepreneurial “initiative”, fishermen would soon catch ALL the fish, and next generation be damned. Left strictly to state regulation, MA fishermen could easily end up shooting at NH and ME fishermen (or more likely vice versa).
Protecting people from themselves is of course anathema to True Scotsmen, and conserving the fishery anathema to “conservatives”.
–TP
bc: 1) the older states have much less restriction in terms of national lands.
Well, duh. At the time of the founding there was a lot less ‘federal’ land (like-virtually none in the original 13), and most had been sold off to private interests (cf NW Ordinance) as the nation grew westward by the genocidal elimination of the original inhabitants. One might say the primary industry in places like settler Tennessee was land speculation.
The western states were carved out of vast tracts of uninhabited land the BELONGED to the federal government (and most of it nobody wanted initially).
So yes, there were restrictions. The states agreed to them as a condition of joining the Union.
Alaska statehood proclamation here.
The political and regional rivalries surrounding new states entering the Union during the first half of the 19th century are well known. It took a bloody civil war to settle the question about “opting out”. The south was reincorporated into the Union at the point of a gun. Look as you may, that principle is not expressly stated in the Constitution anywhere that I am aware of….but there is that clause at the beginning: WE THE PEOPLE.
Less known are the ongoing political issues that were involved with the admittance of the western states after the civil war. They were often quite bitter. Interesting reading.
bc: 1) the older states have much less restriction in terms of national lands.
Well, duh. At the time of the founding there was a lot less ‘federal’ land (like-virtually none in the original 13), and most had been sold off to private interests (cf NW Ordinance) as the nation grew westward by the genocidal elimination of the original inhabitants. One might say the primary industry in places like settler Tennessee was land speculation.
The western states were carved out of vast tracts of uninhabited land the BELONGED to the federal government (and most of it nobody wanted initially).
So yes, there were restrictions. The states agreed to them as a condition of joining the Union.
Alaska statehood proclamation here.
The political and regional rivalries surrounding new states entering the Union during the first half of the 19th century are well known. It took a bloody civil war to settle the question about “opting out”. The south was reincorporated into the Union at the point of a gun. Look as you may, that principle is not expressly stated in the Constitution anywhere that I am aware of….but there is that clause at the beginning: WE THE PEOPLE.
Less known are the ongoing political issues that were involved with the admittance of the western states after the civil war. They were often quite bitter. Interesting reading.
You have to prove who you are to register to vote. You have to be registered to vote … to vote. You have to show up at the right polling place to vote. The fact that you showed up and voted is on record, so you and someone pretending to be you can’t both vote without raising a red flag. Someone pretending to be you doesn’t necessarily know if you voted or not, so they’d be taking a pretty big chance showing up to vote illegally. The penalties are pretty stiff, especially when weighed against the benefit gained from a single vote.
I don’t really have a philosophical problem with voter IDs, either. It’s a practical one about how and why they’ve been attempted to be introduces, which others have covered already.
You have to prove who you are to register to vote. You have to be registered to vote … to vote. You have to show up at the right polling place to vote. The fact that you showed up and voted is on record, so you and someone pretending to be you can’t both vote without raising a red flag. Someone pretending to be you doesn’t necessarily know if you voted or not, so they’d be taking a pretty big chance showing up to vote illegally. The penalties are pretty stiff, especially when weighed against the benefit gained from a single vote.
I don’t really have a philosophical problem with voter IDs, either. It’s a practical one about how and why they’ve been attempted to be introduces, which others have covered already.
What I would add is that the onus should be on anyone trying introduce a voter-ID law to prove that doing so is worth the cost (i.e. it solves an actual problem, presumably significant voter fraud, commensurate with the cost of solving it) and that it does not unduly disenfranchise voters, especially that it doesn’t disenfranchise specific classes of voters more so than voters in general. It seems that voter-ID proposals thus far have largely if not universally failed on both counts.
What I would add is that the onus should be on anyone trying introduce a voter-ID law to prove that doing so is worth the cost (i.e. it solves an actual problem, presumably significant voter fraud, commensurate with the cost of solving it) and that it does not unduly disenfranchise voters, especially that it doesn’t disenfranchise specific classes of voters more so than voters in general. It seems that voter-ID proposals thus far have largely if not universally failed on both counts.
Well, duh.
I’m not sure why this response. I’ve read the Act several times (I did a paper in law school on why Alaska could sue to open ANWR). Pointing out that the West has more federal lands was in response to the argument that there was “not one single reason” in favor of less populous states having two senators. I just gave one.
And point taken, russell, re the fisheries.
Well, duh.
I’m not sure why this response. I’ve read the Act several times (I did a paper in law school on why Alaska could sue to open ANWR). Pointing out that the West has more federal lands was in response to the argument that there was “not one single reason” in favor of less populous states having two senators. I just gave one.
And point taken, russell, re the fisheries.
What I would add is that the onus should be on anyone trying introduce a voter-ID law to prove that doing so is worth the cost
There should be an additional onus or two. (Is the plural onuses, oni, onim, what?)
1. Make it free and extremely easy to get an ID. This means neighborhood storefronts open early and late and on weekends. You can get a passport photo at CVS or Walgreen’s – not sure if that’s universal – but something like that should be.
2. Have enough damn polling places and enough machines. Do we really have to have voters standing in line for hours?
3. Early voting, starting no later than the Saturday ten days before election day, so there are two weekends available.
4. Mail-in ballots for those who want them.
5. Security. I don’t know much about this but I bet it could be a lot better. Require paper trails, for one thing.
Do that, and I’ll listen to talk about making voting more accurate.
I’ll add that a new voting rights act, including anti-gerrymandering provisions, should be a high Democratic priority.
What I would add is that the onus should be on anyone trying introduce a voter-ID law to prove that doing so is worth the cost
There should be an additional onus or two. (Is the plural onuses, oni, onim, what?)
1. Make it free and extremely easy to get an ID. This means neighborhood storefronts open early and late and on weekends. You can get a passport photo at CVS or Walgreen’s – not sure if that’s universal – but something like that should be.
2. Have enough damn polling places and enough machines. Do we really have to have voters standing in line for hours?
3. Early voting, starting no later than the Saturday ten days before election day, so there are two weekends available.
4. Mail-in ballots for those who want them.
5. Security. I don’t know much about this but I bet it could be a lot better. Require paper trails, for one thing.
Do that, and I’ll listen to talk about making voting more accurate.
I’ll add that a new voting rights act, including anti-gerrymandering provisions, should be a high Democratic priority.
I’m not sure why this response.
It was in response to your point 1) which just stated the obvious without going into the context of how such a situation came to be–a point I find germaine.
Not sure what you are getting at with 2) us, them, who, what, where, why?
Point 3) Courts seem to have disagreed. But granted, courts sometime rule against what one feels is right or correct.
I’m not sure why this response.
It was in response to your point 1) which just stated the obvious without going into the context of how such a situation came to be–a point I find germaine.
Not sure what you are getting at with 2) us, them, who, what, where, why?
Point 3) Courts seem to have disagreed. But granted, courts sometime rule against what one feels is right or correct.
And point taken, russell, re the fisheries.
Yes, thank you.
To me, it demonstrates a cultural difference. The West has a tradition of, for lack of a better term, the rugged individual. The traditions are more communitarian where I live. Rooted, I think, in the English traditions of commonwealth.
Just a different set of assumptions.
As far as the voting stuff, it strikes me that the preference should be to enable as many people to vote as possible, rather than restrict the franchise. We can worry about preventing people from voting fraudulently in numbers sufficient to actually make a difference when and if that actually ever happens.
As of yet, to my knowledge, it has not.
And point taken, russell, re the fisheries.
Yes, thank you.
To me, it demonstrates a cultural difference. The West has a tradition of, for lack of a better term, the rugged individual. The traditions are more communitarian where I live. Rooted, I think, in the English traditions of commonwealth.
Just a different set of assumptions.
As far as the voting stuff, it strikes me that the preference should be to enable as many people to vote as possible, rather than restrict the franchise. We can worry about preventing people from voting fraudulently in numbers sufficient to actually make a difference when and if that actually ever happens.
As of yet, to my knowledge, it has not.
Good lord. George Packer has come unhinged.
Never thought I’d live to see that day.
Good lord. George Packer has come unhinged.
Never thought I’d live to see that day.
You have to prove who you are to register to vote.
Ah, but do you? Consider how trivial it is to get a fake driver’s license — which is considered “proof”. And even having “proved” that you are Person X, do you have to prove (how?) that Person X is really a citizen and legally entitled to vote?
It seems to me that all you generally have to do to “prove” these things is be willing to take an oath (and risk perjury charges) to say they are true. And when was the last time that anyone was penalized for falsely registering to vote? Even in places which get exercised about voter IDs?
You have to prove who you are to register to vote.
Ah, but do you? Consider how trivial it is to get a fake driver’s license — which is considered “proof”. And even having “proved” that you are Person X, do you have to prove (how?) that Person X is really a citizen and legally entitled to vote?
It seems to me that all you generally have to do to “prove” these things is be willing to take an oath (and risk perjury charges) to say they are true. And when was the last time that anyone was penalized for falsely registering to vote? Even in places which get exercised about voter IDs?
And when was the last time that anyone was penalized for falsely registering to vote? Even in places which get exercised about voter IDs?
Well, maybe not exactly what you’re asking, but close enough.
Five years.
And when was the last time that anyone was penalized for falsely registering to vote? Even in places which get exercised about voter IDs?
Well, maybe not exactly what you’re asking, but close enough.
Five years.
Consider how trivial it is to get a fake driver’s license — which is considered “proof”.
It’s a f**king PIA to get one where I live, assuming that, by fake, you mean real but fraudulently obtained under someone else’s name. Not that I’ve done that, but it must be at least as much of a PIA as getting a completely legitimate one.
Either way, the standards for proving who you are generally are the standards that that define what “proving who you are” means. Lax or stringent, they are still the standards “we” have adopted. If it’s that easy to get a form of ID that would count for voting or registering to vote, it doesn’t matter much if you present that easily-obtained ID at the time of registration or the time of voting.
What happens when the real person shows up to do either one?
Consider how trivial it is to get a fake driver’s license — which is considered “proof”.
It’s a f**king PIA to get one where I live, assuming that, by fake, you mean real but fraudulently obtained under someone else’s name. Not that I’ve done that, but it must be at least as much of a PIA as getting a completely legitimate one.
Either way, the standards for proving who you are generally are the standards that that define what “proving who you are” means. Lax or stringent, they are still the standards “we” have adopted. If it’s that easy to get a form of ID that would count for voting or registering to vote, it doesn’t matter much if you present that easily-obtained ID at the time of registration or the time of voting.
What happens when the real person shows up to do either one?
Pointing out that the West has more federal lands was in response to the argument that there was “not one single reason” in favor of less populous states having two senators. I just gave one.
Well, let me say this.
First, the land is federally owned. So while that no doubt presents problems worth addressing, it also means that those of us who don’t live in the west have some sayso about it as well. I always thought westerners were big on property rights.
Second, for all the rugged individualism my impression is that the West sucks on the federal teat quite a bit. Mining rights, grazing rights, water projects, agricultural subsidies, who knows what.
Am I wrong about that?
Pointing out that the West has more federal lands was in response to the argument that there was “not one single reason” in favor of less populous states having two senators. I just gave one.
Well, let me say this.
First, the land is federally owned. So while that no doubt presents problems worth addressing, it also means that those of us who don’t live in the west have some sayso about it as well. I always thought westerners were big on property rights.
Second, for all the rugged individualism my impression is that the West sucks on the federal teat quite a bit. Mining rights, grazing rights, water projects, agricultural subsidies, who knows what.
Am I wrong about that?
I always thought westerners were big on property rights.
Actually, no. Just private property rights. Rights regarding public (e.g. Federal) property are a whole different question. Mostly the traditional tendency is to regard them as “commons”. And get outraged if the Feds actually try to enforce the law (pretty much any law) on them. See the Bundys nonsense — they’re nut cases, but not so far out of the usual as one living elsewhere in the country might assume.
I always thought westerners were big on property rights.
Actually, no. Just private property rights. Rights regarding public (e.g. Federal) property are a whole different question. Mostly the traditional tendency is to regard them as “commons”. And get outraged if the Feds actually try to enforce the law (pretty much any law) on them. See the Bundys nonsense — they’re nut cases, but not so far out of the usual as one living elsewhere in the country might assume.
The Feds may have to sell some land to pay for the COVID-19 response bill Trump and the Congress is running up.
The Feds may have to sell some land to pay for the COVID-19 response bill Trump and the Congress is running up.
It may not end up mattering what us old geezers think:
We just need to make sure they get to the polls:
Cue the canned platitudes from the usual suspect about how the young get older and change their minds…
The young who are young now will still be young this November.
It may not end up mattering what us old geezers think:
We just need to make sure they get to the polls:
Cue the canned platitudes from the usual suspect about how the young get older and change their minds…
The young who are young now will still be young this November.
…, rising gun violence, …
Perhaps “the perception of rising gun violence” would be more accurate. While not a precise measure of overall gun violence, gun homicides are near record lows.
…, rising gun violence, …
Perhaps “the perception of rising gun violence” would be more accurate. While not a precise measure of overall gun violence, gun homicides are near record lows.
the GOP is 93% behind a President who is suggesting maybe we could inject ourselves with bleach.
but… tyranny.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1253451487415619586
the GOP is 93% behind a President who is suggesting maybe we could inject ourselves with bleach.
but… tyranny.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1253451487415619586
While not a precise measure of overall gun violence, gun homicides are near record lows.
Got a cite? Here’s one to be going on with.
Here’s another set of factoids, not directly apropos of the “rising” assertion but certainly pertinent to the topic in general:
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.[17] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns.[17]
But quibble away, Charles. I’m sure the young people who have been made to do active shooter drills at school for most of their young lives will be deeply comforted to hear your news.
While not a precise measure of overall gun violence, gun homicides are near record lows.
Got a cite? Here’s one to be going on with.
Here’s another set of factoids, not directly apropos of the “rising” assertion but certainly pertinent to the topic in general:
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.[17] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns.[17]
But quibble away, Charles. I’m sure the young people who have been made to do active shooter drills at school for most of their young lives will be deeply comforted to hear your news.
Graphs in the OP updated for 4/23.
Graphs in the OP updated for 4/23.
Janie, what Charles is saying (whether he admits it or not) is that things here used to be even more appalling. Nothing else.
Janie, what Charles is saying (whether he admits it or not) is that things here used to be even more appalling. Nothing else.
Here’s another one.
Doesn’t look like gun homicides are at record lows to me, unless maybe you mean over the highly atypical time period since a lot of us started staying home all the time.
From the linked site:
Doesn’t sound like record lows to me.
Here’s another one.
Doesn’t look like gun homicides are at record lows to me, unless maybe you mean over the highly atypical time period since a lot of us started staying home all the time.
From the linked site:
Doesn’t sound like record lows to me.
Why exclude suicide? People shooting themselves seems like it would be about as traumatic as murder, to whoever was connected to the deceased.
Death by firearm of all sorts is about 40k a year. A little over 100 people a day.
Why exclude suicide? People shooting themselves seems like it would be about as traumatic as murder, to whoever was connected to the deceased.
Death by firearm of all sorts is about 40k a year. A little over 100 people a day.
Why exclude suicide?
I hope you’re asking Charles, and not me, because I don’t see the point of that either.
But my point in responding was to question his context- and evidence-free (not to mention condescending to the people in that survey) assertion on its face. Which leads me to wj’s comment: I’m still waiting for a cite even on the bare “fact” that Charles asserted. I mean, he didn’t even say gun homicides were down, he said they were at “near record lows.” Nothing I can find comes close to supporting that claim.
Why exclude suicide?
I hope you’re asking Charles, and not me, because I don’t see the point of that either.
But my point in responding was to question his context- and evidence-free (not to mention condescending to the people in that survey) assertion on its face. Which leads me to wj’s comment: I’m still waiting for a cite even on the bare “fact” that Charles asserted. I mean, he didn’t even say gun homicides were down, he said they were at “near record lows.” Nothing I can find comes close to supporting that claim.
Can’t tell you what numbers Charles was looking at. But according to Pew, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
“the number of gun murders [14,542 in 2017] remained far below the peak in 1993, when there were 18,253 gun homicides”
But the increase in gun suicides has driven the total gun deaths to rates not seen for half a century.
Can’t tell you what numbers Charles was looking at. But according to Pew, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
“the number of gun murders [14,542 in 2017] remained far below the peak in 1993, when there were 18,253 gun homicides”
But the increase in gun suicides has driven the total gun deaths to rates not seen for half a century.
The evidence-free assertion that a quibbly little detail is wrong, as if it somehow invalidates the big picture and how people are feeling about it, is…tiresome, to put it politely.
People are scared and fed up. The notion that it’s important to correct (without evidence) one factoid in the face of the sea of disaster young people are facing suggests a profound inability to see the forest for the trees.
The evidence-free assertion that a quibbly little detail is wrong, as if it somehow invalidates the big picture and how people are feeling about it, is…tiresome, to put it politely.
People are scared and fed up. The notion that it’s important to correct (without evidence) one factoid in the face of the sea of disaster young people are facing suggests a profound inability to see the forest for the trees.
wj — every site I can find has a different set of numbers. My first link shows 2006-2017, with 2017 having the highest raw number of gun homicides, and the second highest rate per capita (my own calcs, from population data from somewhere else) in that set.
And with that I’m going to drop it, because I have let Charles suck me into a sidetrack that is deeply beside the point, both of my comment and of the OP.
Lies, damned lies……
wj — every site I can find has a different set of numbers. My first link shows 2006-2017, with 2017 having the highest raw number of gun homicides, and the second highest rate per capita (my own calcs, from population data from somewhere else) in that set.
And with that I’m going to drop it, because I have let Charles suck me into a sidetrack that is deeply beside the point, both of my comment and of the OP.
Lies, damned lies……
Well, I suppose the alternative to looking at gun stats is looking at poll stats. Where Trump appears to be leveraging his position as the only national leader, worldwide, to fail to get a significant and sustained popularity bump from covid-19 into a path to defeat in November.
The only two questions, on current appearances, seem to be:
– how massive a loss can he achieve?
– how many down-ballot Republicans can he take down with him?
Well, I suppose the alternative to looking at gun stats is looking at poll stats. Where Trump appears to be leveraging his position as the only national leader, worldwide, to fail to get a significant and sustained popularity bump from covid-19 into a path to defeat in November.
The only two questions, on current appearances, seem to be:
– how massive a loss can he achieve?
– how many down-ballot Republicans can he take down with him?
Homicide rates in the US peaked in 1980 and then again in 1991. The rate reached it’s lowest since 1957 in 2014. While there’s been an uptick in recent years, it’s still a long way from previous highs. Gun homicides should be a close match to overall homicides.
Homicides in the US Fall for Second Year as Murder Rate Drops in 38 States (Chart)
“In other words, gun homicides have dropped substantially over the past 25 years — but most Americans believe the opposite to be true. Why? Perhaps in part because of the media focus on multiple-victim shooting incidents in recent years. Perhaps, too, because of the number and deadliness of those incidents. We’ve noted before that the number of fatalities in major mass-shooting incidents has increased dramatically in recent years; it’s possible that people are conflating increases in frequency and deadliness of mass shootings with the United States getting more dangerous generally.”
Most Americans incorrectly think gun-murder rates have gotten worse, not better
Homicide rates in the US peaked in 1980 and then again in 1991. The rate reached it’s lowest since 1957 in 2014. While there’s been an uptick in recent years, it’s still a long way from previous highs. Gun homicides should be a close match to overall homicides.
Homicides in the US Fall for Second Year as Murder Rate Drops in 38 States (Chart)
“In other words, gun homicides have dropped substantially over the past 25 years — but most Americans believe the opposite to be true. Why? Perhaps in part because of the media focus on multiple-victim shooting incidents in recent years. Perhaps, too, because of the number and deadliness of those incidents. We’ve noted before that the number of fatalities in major mass-shooting incidents has increased dramatically in recent years; it’s possible that people are conflating increases in frequency and deadliness of mass shootings with the United States getting more dangerous generally.”
Most Americans incorrectly think gun-murder rates have gotten worse, not better
And with that I’m going to drop it, because I have let Charles suck me into a sidetrack that is deeply beside the point, both of my comment and of the OP.
Yes, I should have left it alone saved us both some time.
And with that I’m going to drop it, because I have let Charles suck me into a sidetrack that is deeply beside the point, both of my comment and of the OP.
Yes, I should have left it alone saved us both some time.
“That things here used to be even more appalling” (to use wj’s phrasing) is cold comfort given the level of appalling that we still manage to achieve. And as russell said, why cherry-pick to leave out gun suicides?
So thanks for providing the cite, but I still think it’s beside the point, and destructively so. Knowing that there are fewer gun homicides than there used to be isn’t going to reduce my support for “March for our Lives” by one cent, or make me vote any differently in relation to gun-related policies. And I doubt I’m alone in that sentiment.
“That things here used to be even more appalling” (to use wj’s phrasing) is cold comfort given the level of appalling that we still manage to achieve. And as russell said, why cherry-pick to leave out gun suicides?
So thanks for providing the cite, but I still think it’s beside the point, and destructively so. Knowing that there are fewer gun homicides than there used to be isn’t going to reduce my support for “March for our Lives” by one cent, or make me vote any differently in relation to gun-related policies. And I doubt I’m alone in that sentiment.
One feature that I think matters is this. When the homocide rate was substantially higher, in the early 1990s, murder tended to be related to other kinds of crime. If you weren’t around when one was being committed, and didn’t associate (perhaps involuntarily, due to where you lived) with criminals, you weren’t at major risk.
But now, we have (or at least seem to have) noticably more murder for its own sake. The kind of thing that results in mass shootings, where the salient characteristic of the victims is that they are a) unlikely to be able to fight back, and b) conveniently clustered together. In a 1990s murder, a school (especially a grammer school) was unlikely to be the scene of the crime. (And if it was, a love affair gone wrong was likely involved somehow.) Now, kids have shelter-in-place drills because schools are prime locations for mass shooters.
In short, people** feel more vulnerable now, even though the number of homocides is down. Because for most of us and our families, the chances of being involved have actually increased. And it isn’t obvious what, absent serious gun controls, we can do about it.
** Specifically the kind of people who vote, and donate to campaigns, and write Letters to the Editor and blogs.
One feature that I think matters is this. When the homocide rate was substantially higher, in the early 1990s, murder tended to be related to other kinds of crime. If you weren’t around when one was being committed, and didn’t associate (perhaps involuntarily, due to where you lived) with criminals, you weren’t at major risk.
But now, we have (or at least seem to have) noticably more murder for its own sake. The kind of thing that results in mass shootings, where the salient characteristic of the victims is that they are a) unlikely to be able to fight back, and b) conveniently clustered together. In a 1990s murder, a school (especially a grammer school) was unlikely to be the scene of the crime. (And if it was, a love affair gone wrong was likely involved somehow.) Now, kids have shelter-in-place drills because schools are prime locations for mass shooters.
In short, people** feel more vulnerable now, even though the number of homocides is down. Because for most of us and our families, the chances of being involved have actually increased. And it isn’t obvious what, absent serious gun controls, we can do about it.
** Specifically the kind of people who vote, and donate to campaigns, and write Letters to the Editor and blogs.
Also a lot of single homicides could have taken place without a gun present (in particular domestic ones). Shooting is (in the moment) just more convenient than stabbing, strangling, clobbering, drowning in the bathtub, suffocating with a pillow, rat poison, running over with a car etc. etc.
Something like Las Vegas would be nigh impossible without rapid fire guns or explosives (even the traditional arson has lost a bit of effecticveness). And mass murder tends to be more headline grabbing than the same number of victims in a more individual context (cf. also landmines vs 9/11). On the other hand, ‘minor’ mass shootings have become so ‘normal’ that they rarely become national news anymore (like ‘our daily carbomb’ in Iraq).
Also a lot of single homicides could have taken place without a gun present (in particular domestic ones). Shooting is (in the moment) just more convenient than stabbing, strangling, clobbering, drowning in the bathtub, suffocating with a pillow, rat poison, running over with a car etc. etc.
Something like Las Vegas would be nigh impossible without rapid fire guns or explosives (even the traditional arson has lost a bit of effecticveness). And mass murder tends to be more headline grabbing than the same number of victims in a more individual context (cf. also landmines vs 9/11). On the other hand, ‘minor’ mass shootings have become so ‘normal’ that they rarely become national news anymore (like ‘our daily carbomb’ in Iraq).
Because for most of us and our families, the chances of being involved have actually increased.
While they are horrific and get a lot of attention, the lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting are about 1 in 11,125 or 0.009%.
How likely is gun violence to kill the average American? The odds may surprise you
Because for most of us and our families, the chances of being involved have actually increased.
While they are horrific and get a lot of attention, the lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting are about 1 in 11,125 or 0.009%.
How likely is gun violence to kill the average American? The odds may surprise you
CharlesWT: I suspect you don’t know what those odds look like to inhabitants of other first world democracies.
CharlesWT: I suspect you don’t know what those odds look like to inhabitants of other first world democracies.
GftNC,
The word “other” is probably redundant in your 7:16 to CharlesWT. In first world democracies full stop, it is not necessary for disinfectant manufacturers to warn the public against Dear Leader’s word salad about injecting or ingesting Lysol.
–TP
GftNC,
The word “other” is probably redundant in your 7:16 to CharlesWT. In first world democracies full stop, it is not necessary for disinfectant manufacturers to warn the public against Dear Leader’s word salad about injecting or ingesting Lysol.
–TP
TP: 😉
TP: 😉
Here’s the bit that set off the gun thing:
As of the time this was written, something like 187,000 American kids had experienced a shooting on their school campus since Columbine in 1999.
The article is dated March 31, 2018, so it’s higher now. Let’s just round it up to 200K.
I don’t recall any school shootings, at all, when I was a kid. Maybe they happened, they weren’t “a thing”. Now they are a thing.
Kids have to go to school. Homeschool is option, but not for everyone, and if you don’t homeschool, your kids have to go to school. And all of those kids are reminded, typically a few times a year, that some random pissed off disaffected dude – always a dude – can walk into school one day and kill them.
IMO Janie’s point stands.
Here’s the bit that set off the gun thing:
As of the time this was written, something like 187,000 American kids had experienced a shooting on their school campus since Columbine in 1999.
The article is dated March 31, 2018, so it’s higher now. Let’s just round it up to 200K.
I don’t recall any school shootings, at all, when I was a kid. Maybe they happened, they weren’t “a thing”. Now they are a thing.
Kids have to go to school. Homeschool is option, but not for everyone, and if you don’t homeschool, your kids have to go to school. And all of those kids are reminded, typically a few times a year, that some random pissed off disaffected dude – always a dude – can walk into school one day and kill them.
IMO Janie’s point stands.
The Feds may have to sell some land to pay for the COVID-19 response bill Trump and the Congress is running up.
Gun deaths may be at some wonderful low, but the economic and policy stupidity expressed above appears to continue unabated. Getting gun deaths to near zero (now ask yourself-wouldn’t that be better?) would be a trivial social exercise, but economic stupidity appears to be intractable.
The Feds may have to sell some land to pay for the COVID-19 response bill Trump and the Congress is running up.
Gun deaths may be at some wonderful low, but the economic and policy stupidity expressed above appears to continue unabated. Getting gun deaths to near zero (now ask yourself-wouldn’t that be better?) would be a trivial social exercise, but economic stupidity appears to be intractable.
Thanks for all the additional context, everyone.
I would add one more contextual feature: the survey I cited that started this topic going was about young people’s attitudes toward government that mentioned that the people surveyed were concerned about “rising gun violence.”
Charles came back with a context-free assertion that gun murders are at “historic lows” in this country. When pressed for evidence, he cited a 2018 article that said that the peak for gun violence was in IIRC 1994.
Most of the people in the Harvard survey weren’t even born then. Columbine was in 1999.
Thanks for all the additional context, everyone.
I would add one more contextual feature: the survey I cited that started this topic going was about young people’s attitudes toward government that mentioned that the people surveyed were concerned about “rising gun violence.”
Charles came back with a context-free assertion that gun murders are at “historic lows” in this country. When pressed for evidence, he cited a 2018 article that said that the peak for gun violence was in IIRC 1994.
Most of the people in the Harvard survey weren’t even born then. Columbine was in 1999.
Injection of bleach is likely to have some immediate unpleasant (some even say violent) side effects, so use of a restrainibg chair or couch is advised. Once you do not feel any of them anymore* (it won’t take long) let some third person apply liberal amounts of quicklime. This should guarantee that the virus can no longer harm you and is very unlikely to infect others coming in contact with you.
Warning: homoeopathic bleach will not do.
Please consult your doctor, minister and executor in advance, whether this treatment suits your condition!
*the almost inevitable exitus fatalis insipidi is (in the opinion of leading medical personnel) not painful per se, although some religious scholars postulate a very intense feeling of warmth of undeterminate length afterwards.
Injection of bleach is likely to have some immediate unpleasant (some even say violent) side effects, so use of a restrainibg chair or couch is advised. Once you do not feel any of them anymore* (it won’t take long) let some third person apply liberal amounts of quicklime. This should guarantee that the virus can no longer harm you and is very unlikely to infect others coming in contact with you.
Warning: homoeopathic bleach will not do.
Please consult your doctor, minister and executor in advance, whether this treatment suits your condition!
*the almost inevitable exitus fatalis insipidi is (in the opinion of leading medical personnel) not painful per se, although some religious scholars postulate a very intense feeling of warmth of undeterminate length afterwards.
…, but economic stupidity appears to be intractable.
This certainly seems to be the case with politicians and bureaucrats who are now spending money the government doesn’t and won’t have any time soon.
And, due to a black swan event, Trump gets to spend the impossible amounts of money that the Democrats wanted to spend on single-payer health care and green new deals.
…, but economic stupidity appears to be intractable.
This certainly seems to be the case with politicians and bureaucrats who are now spending money the government doesn’t and won’t have any time soon.
And, due to a black swan event, Trump gets to spend the impossible amounts of money that the Democrats wanted to spend on single-payer health care and green new deals.
I don’t know why everyone is being so hard on the president. He just suggested looking into putting intense light and disinfectants into the body to kill the virus. It might work in one minute, but we won’t know unless we look into it.
It’s very promising, and I’m glad he’s so open minded about all the possibilities for a cure. It gives me a lot of hope, and I appreciate his bold leadership in this time of crisis.
Let’s all come together and get behind him for the sake of our great nation.
I don’t know why everyone is being so hard on the president. He just suggested looking into putting intense light and disinfectants into the body to kill the virus. It might work in one minute, but we won’t know unless we look into it.
It’s very promising, and I’m glad he’s so open minded about all the possibilities for a cure. It gives me a lot of hope, and I appreciate his bold leadership in this time of crisis.
Let’s all come together and get behind him for the sake of our great nation.
” who are now spending money the government doesn’t and won’t have any time soon.”
And once AGAIN we see the persistent pre-modern belief that the government has a big pile of shiny metal that has to be replenished before it’s gone or DISASTER!
It’s bits. On a computer.
Let me know when you have to take a wheelbarrow full of terabyte drives to the store to buy a loaf of bread, m’kay?
” who are now spending money the government doesn’t and won’t have any time soon.”
And once AGAIN we see the persistent pre-modern belief that the government has a big pile of shiny metal that has to be replenished before it’s gone or DISASTER!
It’s bits. On a computer.
Let me know when you have to take a wheelbarrow full of terabyte drives to the store to buy a loaf of bread, m’kay?
I would add one more contextual feature: the survey I cited that started this topic going was about young people’s attitudes toward government that mentioned that the people surveyed were concerned about “rising gun violence.”
In the survey, people weren’t asked about gun violence. The “rising gun violence” was an assertion made by the author while linking to an article about the increase in gun violence over a period of two years, not a generation. During the lifetimes of the people surveyed, gun violence has increased some in recent years after declining all their lives to a 65 year low.
I would add one more contextual feature: the survey I cited that started this topic going was about young people’s attitudes toward government that mentioned that the people surveyed were concerned about “rising gun violence.”
In the survey, people weren’t asked about gun violence. The “rising gun violence” was an assertion made by the author while linking to an article about the increase in gun violence over a period of two years, not a generation. During the lifetimes of the people surveyed, gun violence has increased some in recent years after declining all their lives to a 65 year low.
It’s bits. On a computer.
So is the Bitcoin I have. And, unlike the Dollar, it can’t be inflated.
It’s bits. On a computer.
So is the Bitcoin I have. And, unlike the Dollar, it can’t be inflated.
due to a black swan event
What is this black swan event, kemosabe? Presumably you don’t mean the virus, since we have been hearing for years it was likely to happen, and some countries were reasonably prepared for it. If you mean that the election of Jackass was a black swan event, you may have a point, although personally I was delighted to have my historic characterisation (on this very site) of Sarah Palin as Jackass’s John the Baptist recently validated (as an expression, it was already validated in fact) in that Atlantic piece linked by me and bobbyp, which means even that was foreseeable to the wise (among whom I do not count myself).
due to a black swan event
What is this black swan event, kemosabe? Presumably you don’t mean the virus, since we have been hearing for years it was likely to happen, and some countries were reasonably prepared for it. If you mean that the election of Jackass was a black swan event, you may have a point, although personally I was delighted to have my historic characterisation (on this very site) of Sarah Palin as Jackass’s John the Baptist recently validated (as an expression, it was already validated in fact) in that Atlantic piece linked by me and bobbyp, which means even that was foreseeable to the wise (among whom I do not count myself).
So is the Bitcoin I have. And, unlike the Dollar, it can’t be inflated.
If you don’t think the price of Bitcoin can go up, why do you have it? ;^)
So is the Bitcoin I have. And, unlike the Dollar, it can’t be inflated.
If you don’t think the price of Bitcoin can go up, why do you have it? ;^)
the Bitcoin I have. And, unlike the Dollar, it can’t be inflated.
Yup, we’ve all noticed what a marvelous store of value Bitcoins are. Oh, wait….
the Bitcoin I have. And, unlike the Dollar, it can’t be inflated.
Yup, we’ve all noticed what a marvelous store of value Bitcoins are. Oh, wait….
Bitcoin is currently about $7,500. It started out at about $0.06.
Bitcoin is currently about $7,500. It started out at about $0.06.
everyone knows injecting disinfectant only works on windmill-related cancers.
(not mine, sadly)
everyone knows injecting disinfectant only works on windmill-related cancers.
(not mine, sadly)
“And, unlike the Dollar, it can’t be inflated.”
That, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.
Bleach is extra, although MAGA Covid preppers are OPEC-ING the crap out of bleach with their inflated Bitcoins.
Some of em got hold of some bad bleach in the black market for bleach, which takes only Bitcoin as a unit of exchange (There’s nothing in the Constitution … full stop. Well … there isn’t, besides vague generalizations, and it was written purposely like that because the Framers, being in a hurry to stop at the wet market in downtown Boston to pick up some animal innards for supper, knew jacktards in 2020 would kvetch about lugging around the 5 million page Constitution, let alone reading the details, the ifins, the ands, and the buts, let alone being forced to buy muscle shirts with bigger breast pockets in them to hold the durned thing; cut to the chase, they say), which is to say what they got hold of only put them into permanent comas, instead of outright killing them in horrific, writhing deaths throes, though the upside is the bleach sweetened their breath and prevented them from contracting Covid-19, cancer, black heart disease, diphshittheria, and every other disease your normal live, still kicking human is prone to.
Understandable, the hoarding that is, as Bleach is a healthy stand-in for Blood Mary mix in a Pinch, which starts with P, which rhymes with T, which stands for Trouble.
I prefer a little dill pickle juice but freedom is a ringing in my ears, but I can’t seem to answer it.
I know this, after all, I’m …
“And, unlike the Dollar, it can’t be inflated.”
That, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee.
Bleach is extra, although MAGA Covid preppers are OPEC-ING the crap out of bleach with their inflated Bitcoins.
Some of em got hold of some bad bleach in the black market for bleach, which takes only Bitcoin as a unit of exchange (There’s nothing in the Constitution … full stop. Well … there isn’t, besides vague generalizations, and it was written purposely like that because the Framers, being in a hurry to stop at the wet market in downtown Boston to pick up some animal innards for supper, knew jacktards in 2020 would kvetch about lugging around the 5 million page Constitution, let alone reading the details, the ifins, the ands, and the buts, let alone being forced to buy muscle shirts with bigger breast pockets in them to hold the durned thing; cut to the chase, they say), which is to say what they got hold of only put them into permanent comas, instead of outright killing them in horrific, writhing deaths throes, though the upside is the bleach sweetened their breath and prevented them from contracting Covid-19, cancer, black heart disease, diphshittheria, and every other disease your normal live, still kicking human is prone to.
Understandable, the hoarding that is, as Bleach is a healthy stand-in for Blood Mary mix in a Pinch, which starts with P, which rhymes with T, which stands for Trouble.
I prefer a little dill pickle juice but freedom is a ringing in my ears, but I can’t seem to answer it.
I know this, after all, I’m …
The stores were already having trouble keeping bleach in stock. And now Trump wants people to inject it???
I’m guessing the lines outside the store are going to get longer…. Well, at least until his fans start exhibiting the results of evolution in action.
The stores were already having trouble keeping bleach in stock. And now Trump wants people to inject it???
I’m guessing the lines outside the store are going to get longer…. Well, at least until his fans start exhibiting the results of evolution in action.
Random notes on federal land ownership in the West. Yes, I have a bias…
At the time the western states were being admitted, federal practice was to move federally-owned land into state or private hands as quickly as possible. Western states assumed that was the deal they were getting. This changed informally over the period 1895-1905, when eastern representatives in Congress decided that the public lands should be held as resource reserves (eg, we might need that crappy timber that grows in Colorado). Of course, only western states were affected (cartogram of the 48 contiguous states, scaled by federal land holdings), and voted against it. The policy that public lands would be held by the federal government forever was formalized in 1976, and essentially every member of Congress from a western state voted against it.
The response to “the states won’t be able to afford to manage the lands” is to point at the very long list of federal mismanagement. There are reasons that, according to a friend, the informal slogan at the Western Governors Association is “Do you know what those d*ckheads at BLM have done now?” There’s a plausible case that can be made that a more correct statement is “the states won’t be able to afford as many mistakes.”
Western states do derive some benefits from federal ownership. OTOH, eastern states have derived enormous benefits from the feds giving them federally owned land. From time to time Congress has considered ceding the public lands to the states. They only do this during serious economic downturns, and with conditions that would require the states to immddediately fix problems created by the feds.
This is not a case of all happening long ago. Ask California about Trump and his appointees overruling California’s water plans. Multiple western states are unable to manage the power grid to maximize use of renewable sources because the quasi-feds control key parts of the transmission system and don’t want to play nice.
Random notes on federal land ownership in the West. Yes, I have a bias…
At the time the western states were being admitted, federal practice was to move federally-owned land into state or private hands as quickly as possible. Western states assumed that was the deal they were getting. This changed informally over the period 1895-1905, when eastern representatives in Congress decided that the public lands should be held as resource reserves (eg, we might need that crappy timber that grows in Colorado). Of course, only western states were affected (cartogram of the 48 contiguous states, scaled by federal land holdings), and voted against it. The policy that public lands would be held by the federal government forever was formalized in 1976, and essentially every member of Congress from a western state voted against it.
The response to “the states won’t be able to afford to manage the lands” is to point at the very long list of federal mismanagement. There are reasons that, according to a friend, the informal slogan at the Western Governors Association is “Do you know what those d*ckheads at BLM have done now?” There’s a plausible case that can be made that a more correct statement is “the states won’t be able to afford as many mistakes.”
Western states do derive some benefits from federal ownership. OTOH, eastern states have derived enormous benefits from the feds giving them federally owned land. From time to time Congress has considered ceding the public lands to the states. They only do this during serious economic downturns, and with conditions that would require the states to immddediately fix problems created by the feds.
This is not a case of all happening long ago. Ask California about Trump and his appointees overruling California’s water plans. Multiple western states are unable to manage the power grid to maximize use of renewable sources because the quasi-feds control key parts of the transmission system and don’t want to play nice.
The explanations for the light-and-disinfectant comments I just now heard on the radio are that the comments were taken out of context (from WH staffers) and that El Naranja was being sarcastic and only saying those things to see how reporters would react (from El Naranja, himself).
In what conceivable context would those comments not be idiotic?
Why, during a global pandemic, would the President of the United States of America, on camera, be playing games like that with reporters?
Rod Serling couldn’t make this sh*t up.
The explanations for the light-and-disinfectant comments I just now heard on the radio are that the comments were taken out of context (from WH staffers) and that El Naranja was being sarcastic and only saying those things to see how reporters would react (from El Naranja, himself).
In what conceivable context would those comments not be idiotic?
Why, during a global pandemic, would the President of the United States of America, on camera, be playing games like that with reporters?
Rod Serling couldn’t make this sh*t up.
the GOP is 93% behind a President who is suggesting maybe we could inject ourselves with bleach.
The fact that anyone not on the staff of the Onion would even think to name the concept of injecting ourselves with bleach (or of putting sunlight inside our bodies to disinfect them) is mind-boggling. The fact that a person who would name that concept as if it were a serious proposal for doctors to test became the president of the United States is beyond the realm of anything my meager imagination could ever have concocted. The fact that a bloc comprising 93% of one of the two major political parties in this country still supports him makes me pretty sure going to live in the deepest north woods might have been the best idea after all.
I blew it.
Oh, and let me add one other incredulity, which is the fact that we have a significant section of the population that is so fucking stupid that experts have to be found to warn people that actually, injecting bleach is a really really really bad idea.
the GOP is 93% behind a President who is suggesting maybe we could inject ourselves with bleach.
The fact that anyone not on the staff of the Onion would even think to name the concept of injecting ourselves with bleach (or of putting sunlight inside our bodies to disinfect them) is mind-boggling. The fact that a person who would name that concept as if it were a serious proposal for doctors to test became the president of the United States is beyond the realm of anything my meager imagination could ever have concocted. The fact that a bloc comprising 93% of one of the two major political parties in this country still supports him makes me pretty sure going to live in the deepest north woods might have been the best idea after all.
I blew it.
Oh, and let me add one other incredulity, which is the fact that we have a significant section of the population that is so fucking stupid that experts have to be found to warn people that actually, injecting bleach is a really really really bad idea.
And Michael gives me an opening… 🙂
“The federal government owns 640 million acres of land—mainly in the West—which is 28 percent of land in the United States. For more than a century after the nation’s founding, the federal government aimed to sell or give away western lands to individuals, businesses, and state governments. But by the turn of the 20th century, federal policy came under the sway of progressives, who favored increased federal control.
Progressives had a misguided notion that federal ownership would be efficient and environmentally sound. Broadly speaking, they were wrong. Experience has shown that federal agencies mismanage land from both economic and environmental perspectives, as discussed here and here. The solution is to devolve ownership of most federal land to the states and private sector. “
Privatizing Federal Grazing Lands
And Michael gives me an opening… 🙂
“The federal government owns 640 million acres of land—mainly in the West—which is 28 percent of land in the United States. For more than a century after the nation’s founding, the federal government aimed to sell or give away western lands to individuals, businesses, and state governments. But by the turn of the 20th century, federal policy came under the sway of progressives, who favored increased federal control.
Progressives had a misguided notion that federal ownership would be efficient and environmentally sound. Broadly speaking, they were wrong. Experience has shown that federal agencies mismanage land from both economic and environmental perspectives, as discussed here and here. The solution is to devolve ownership of most federal land to the states and private sector. “
Privatizing Federal Grazing Lands
“Protected public lands in the United States — including national forests, national parks, and similar areas — cover nearly 500,000 square miles, or 14 percent of the land area of the United States. The existence of these government-controlled lands gives the federal government immense power over much of the United States, and in some US states, the federal government controls a majority of the land area.”
Privatizing Public Lands Doesn’t Mean Turning Them Into Shopping Centers
“Federal entities account for 7 percent of U.S. power generation, and they own about 14 percent of the nation’s transmission lines. Most of the power carried by the PMAs is hydroelectric, but an exception is that BPA buys power from the Columbia Nuclear Generating Station, owned by the state of Washington.”
Privatizing Federal Electricity Infrastructure
“Protected public lands in the United States — including national forests, national parks, and similar areas — cover nearly 500,000 square miles, or 14 percent of the land area of the United States. The existence of these government-controlled lands gives the federal government immense power over much of the United States, and in some US states, the federal government controls a majority of the land area.”
Privatizing Public Lands Doesn’t Mean Turning Them Into Shopping Centers
“Federal entities account for 7 percent of U.S. power generation, and they own about 14 percent of the nation’s transmission lines. Most of the power carried by the PMAs is hydroelectric, but an exception is that BPA buys power from the Columbia Nuclear Generating Station, owned by the state of Washington.”
Privatizing Federal Electricity Infrastructure
I suppose I should say something since I’m the resident lunatic on the subject of a partition of the states. Although russell is coming along :^)
It’s not a ripe issue yet. Maybe in 40 years. I think there are several trends that lead to it in combination. The most important ones, IMO, are climate change and things driven by any meaningful responses to it. And of course, if the trends don’t come out the way I think they will, the issue may never be ripe.
Lots of the comments to this point reflect that unripeness. Uncountable trillions in wealth will be destroyed? Not if people who want a partition are handling the accounting. Who gets the nukes? If the US has already become just a regional military power, it doesn’t matter who gets the nukes. Common culture? The current pandemic has raised an interesting example. In the 13-state west, most states have ballot initiatives. A very large majority of all ballots cast are already cast by mail. Almost all of the big population states redistrict by commission (either nonpartisan or bipartisan), not the legislature, and much of that has happened because of initiative. Outside of the West, not so much. I claim those are important cultural differences already.
Partition isn’t going to happen today. It’s going to happen in 25-40 years. Any sort of meaningful analysis has to be based on a projection of things to that time period.
I suppose I should say something since I’m the resident lunatic on the subject of a partition of the states. Although russell is coming along :^)
It’s not a ripe issue yet. Maybe in 40 years. I think there are several trends that lead to it in combination. The most important ones, IMO, are climate change and things driven by any meaningful responses to it. And of course, if the trends don’t come out the way I think they will, the issue may never be ripe.
Lots of the comments to this point reflect that unripeness. Uncountable trillions in wealth will be destroyed? Not if people who want a partition are handling the accounting. Who gets the nukes? If the US has already become just a regional military power, it doesn’t matter who gets the nukes. Common culture? The current pandemic has raised an interesting example. In the 13-state west, most states have ballot initiatives. A very large majority of all ballots cast are already cast by mail. Almost all of the big population states redistrict by commission (either nonpartisan or bipartisan), not the legislature, and much of that has happened because of initiative. Outside of the West, not so much. I claim those are important cultural differences already.
Partition isn’t going to happen today. It’s going to happen in 25-40 years. Any sort of meaningful analysis has to be based on a projection of things to that time period.
hairshirt…. Great minds. 😉
hairshirt…. Great minds. 😉
states are supposed to be different from one another. out of many [different local cultures and approaches to self-government], one. that’s the whole idea.
states are supposed to be different from one another. out of many [different local cultures and approaches to self-government], one. that’s the whole idea.
The fact that a person who would name that concept as if it were a serious proposal for doctors to test became the president of the United States is beyond the realm of anything my meager imagination could ever have concocted.
Others are, apparently, more imaginative. Consider Heinlein’s prediction of an American theocracy, founded by an overtly (as opposed to the current unacknowledged) religious movement led by a conman. And not a very bright one either. Elected, I note, in 2012 — so closer than one would believe. Certainly closer than I, reading the stories in the middle of the last century, would believe.
The fact that a person who would name that concept as if it were a serious proposal for doctors to test became the president of the United States is beyond the realm of anything my meager imagination could ever have concocted.
Others are, apparently, more imaginative. Consider Heinlein’s prediction of an American theocracy, founded by an overtly (as opposed to the current unacknowledged) religious movement led by a conman. And not a very bright one either. Elected, I note, in 2012 — so closer than one would believe. Certainly closer than I, reading the stories in the middle of the last century, would believe.
Well wj, I would certainly concede without any hesitation that Heinlein was more imaginative than I am. He would be only one of a very long list. 😉
I was actually thinking of dystopian literature when I wrote the comment, not to mention certain areas of real life on this planet.
Nevertheless, I stick by my point. That SFJ-fka-Clickbait could become president of the United States, and it’s not fiction, requires a bottom-up rearrangement of my assumptions about the world, and homo sapiens. I mean okay, knowing something about history I shouldn’t have been so naive.
Well wj, I would certainly concede without any hesitation that Heinlein was more imaginative than I am. He would be only one of a very long list. 😉
I was actually thinking of dystopian literature when I wrote the comment, not to mention certain areas of real life on this planet.
Nevertheless, I stick by my point. That SFJ-fka-Clickbait could become president of the United States, and it’s not fiction, requires a bottom-up rearrangement of my assumptions about the world, and homo sapiens. I mean okay, knowing something about history I shouldn’t have been so naive.
out of many [different local cultures and approaches to self-government], one.
That’s been a largely obsolete concept since the Civil War amendments were added 150 years ago. State and local governments have been forced more and more into a single mold ever since. Arizona v. Arizona surprised the heck out of a lot of pundits and legal academics, who expected the SCOTUS to toss redistricting commissions for US House seats, and significantly restrict the scope of ballot initiatives. They got it wrong because they forgot that Kennedy was a California boy. One of the few things — perhaps the only thing — that Justice Thomas and I agree on is that the SCOTUS ought to reflect geographic diversity. Not just people from Harvard/Yale Law whose professional career has been exclusively in the BosWash urban corridor.
out of many [different local cultures and approaches to self-government], one.
That’s been a largely obsolete concept since the Civil War amendments were added 150 years ago. State and local governments have been forced more and more into a single mold ever since. Arizona v. Arizona surprised the heck out of a lot of pundits and legal academics, who expected the SCOTUS to toss redistricting commissions for US House seats, and significantly restrict the scope of ballot initiatives. They got it wrong because they forgot that Kennedy was a California boy. One of the few things — perhaps the only thing — that Justice Thomas and I agree on is that the SCOTUS ought to reflect geographic diversity. Not just people from Harvard/Yale Law whose professional career has been exclusively in the BosWash urban corridor.
No doubt it is me viewing the world of my youth thru rose colored glasses. But I just cannot see the people then electing such an idiot. A bigot like Wallace? Might have happened (although it didn’t). But Wallace was a genius compared to Trump. Not to mention a competent governor.
It does raise the question: What went wrong, presumably with our education system, that people would be willing to accept such stupidity? Don’t have an answer to that, off the top of my head.
No doubt it is me viewing the world of my youth thru rose colored glasses. But I just cannot see the people then electing such an idiot. A bigot like Wallace? Might have happened (although it didn’t). But Wallace was a genius compared to Trump. Not to mention a competent governor.
It does raise the question: What went wrong, presumably with our education system, that people would be willing to accept such stupidity? Don’t have an answer to that, off the top of my head.
hairshirt…. Great minds. 😉
Not just them. Us, too.
hairshirt…. Great minds. 😉
Not just them. Us, too.
We need hundreds of thousands of injection sites now. This should be a federal program set up and costs paid by the taxpayers. Then we sell it for pennies on the dollar to private interests to promote efficiency.
I see nothing wrong with this….why not give it a try? Couldn’t hurt.
We need hundreds of thousands of injection sites now. This should be a federal program set up and costs paid by the taxpayers. Then we sell it for pennies on the dollar to private interests to promote efficiency.
I see nothing wrong with this….why not give it a try? Couldn’t hurt.
Woodrow Willson was a sufficiently bad enough president to give Trump some competition.
Woodrow Willson was a sufficiently bad enough president to give Trump some competition.
Wilson was bad in many ways.
Racist to the core.
Desegregated the Federal workforce, re-instituting negative action for black employees.
He wasn’t exactly the Malcolm X of Rosa Parks of his day.
Would have joined John Wilkes Booth, Strom Thurmond, Tim Scott, and Clarence Thomas in seeking shelter in today’s racist Republican Party, had he been around later.
Also did not once publicly mention the Spanish Flu, probably because he thought someone would ask him why he wasn’t calling it the American Flu.
Now, just to interrupt conservative republicans suddenly warming up to him, let me say that in not mentioning the Spanish FLU day after day after day, in that act alone he proved far superior to the current lout.
Wilson’s handlers probably told him up front:
“Look, Woody, we know once you start shooting your mouth off about this pandemic, pretty soon you’ll run out of shit to talk about and start advising citizens to drink bleach or inhale into it their lungs, so .. how bout we put a sock in it from the get go and not drive everyone stark raving bonkers by flooding the zone with shit.”
“Let them die in peace without your uncle’s brilliant scientific mind helping them out.”
Wilson was bad in many ways.
Racist to the core.
Desegregated the Federal workforce, re-instituting negative action for black employees.
He wasn’t exactly the Malcolm X of Rosa Parks of his day.
Would have joined John Wilkes Booth, Strom Thurmond, Tim Scott, and Clarence Thomas in seeking shelter in today’s racist Republican Party, had he been around later.
Also did not once publicly mention the Spanish Flu, probably because he thought someone would ask him why he wasn’t calling it the American Flu.
Now, just to interrupt conservative republicans suddenly warming up to him, let me say that in not mentioning the Spanish FLU day after day after day, in that act alone he proved far superior to the current lout.
Wilson’s handlers probably told him up front:
“Look, Woody, we know once you start shooting your mouth off about this pandemic, pretty soon you’ll run out of shit to talk about and start advising citizens to drink bleach or inhale into it their lungs, so .. how bout we put a sock in it from the get go and not drive everyone stark raving bonkers by flooding the zone with shit.”
“Let them die in peace without your uncle’s brilliant scientific mind helping them out.”
Woodrow Willson was a sufficiently bad enough president to give Trump some competition.
Naturally you have some specifics to back up that amazing assertion. (Personally, I could see putting Wilson in the bottom half. But not even close to Buchannan or Andrew Johnson. Let alone Trump.)
Next I assume you will argue that Trump’s corruption doesn’t even begin to approach Harding….
Woodrow Willson was a sufficiently bad enough president to give Trump some competition.
Naturally you have some specifics to back up that amazing assertion. (Personally, I could see putting Wilson in the bottom half. But not even close to Buchannan or Andrew Johnson. Let alone Trump.)
Next I assume you will argue that Trump’s corruption doesn’t even begin to approach Harding….
A link for your trouble:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/04/08/how_woodrow_wilson_let_death_run_viral_in_the_great_war_123047.html
A link for your trouble:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/04/08/how_woodrow_wilson_let_death_run_viral_in_the_great_war_123047.html
https://twitter.com/funder/status/1253651765720952832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1253651765720952832&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketwatch.com%2Fstory%2Fwho-is-deborah-birx-the-doctor-whose-reaction-when-trump-suggested-people-inject-disinfectants-has-gone-viral-2020-04-24
Poor Deborah’s thinking, her soul shriveled to a hard black pit of despair, much like the doomed pre-murdered in the Jim Jones compound as the Koolaid was passed to the children, yes, Mr. President, let’s you and me raise our glasses of bleach and guzzle the contents together and toast the poisoned end this fucking subhuman travesty of a country flooded with conservative republican shit.
Or maybe, she’s undecided. I don’t know, she muses to herself, stifling the gorge that is rising in her throat, I did get those tax cuts, and I never liked John Prine’s music anyway.
Now, that would be a reset for the ages. We wouldn’t have to change a word.
https://twitter.com/funder/status/1253651765720952832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1253651765720952832&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketwatch.com%2Fstory%2Fwho-is-deborah-birx-the-doctor-whose-reaction-when-trump-suggested-people-inject-disinfectants-has-gone-viral-2020-04-24
Poor Deborah’s thinking, her soul shriveled to a hard black pit of despair, much like the doomed pre-murdered in the Jim Jones compound as the Koolaid was passed to the children, yes, Mr. President, let’s you and me raise our glasses of bleach and guzzle the contents together and toast the poisoned end this fucking subhuman travesty of a country flooded with conservative republican shit.
Or maybe, she’s undecided. I don’t know, she muses to herself, stifling the gorge that is rising in her throat, I did get those tax cuts, and I never liked John Prine’s music anyway.
Now, that would be a reset for the ages. We wouldn’t have to change a word.
Wilson RE-SEGREGATED the federal workforce.
Wilson RE-SEGREGATED the federal workforce.
From a libertarian point of view, some of the best presidents are the ones nobody remembers. The ones who didn’t become famous/infamous by their willingness to overstep their role as president.
“Any president can change the future. Donald Trump stands out for his ability to change the past, without even trying.
He’s already altered perceptions of what happened in America decades and centuries ago. We know that because of a new survey of presidential historians conducted by C-SPAN, asking them to rank presidents on various attributes and overall performance.
The latest scorecard, which included responses from 91 historians, is similar in most respects to those compiled in C-SPAN’s first two, in 2000 and 2009. But it holds some surprises that suggest that things look different with Trump in the picture.”
How Trump Affects the Presidential Rankings: Eisenhower and Jackson now perceived differently. What’s going on?
From a libertarian point of view, some of the best presidents are the ones nobody remembers. The ones who didn’t become famous/infamous by their willingness to overstep their role as president.
“Any president can change the future. Donald Trump stands out for his ability to change the past, without even trying.
He’s already altered perceptions of what happened in America decades and centuries ago. We know that because of a new survey of presidential historians conducted by C-SPAN, asking them to rank presidents on various attributes and overall performance.
The latest scorecard, which included responses from 91 historians, is similar in most respects to those compiled in C-SPAN’s first two, in 2000 and 2009. But it holds some surprises that suggest that things look different with Trump in the picture.”
How Trump Affects the Presidential Rankings: Eisenhower and Jackson now perceived differently. What’s going on?
CharlesWT has the most visually distinct comments.
CharlesWT has the most visually distinct comments.
Well, I suppose if your metric for how good a President is is, how little did he do?, then Trump would rank pretty high. After all, his incompetence has kept him from actually accomplishing most of the things that he has tried to do.
Of course, it can take some mental gymnastics to equate incompetence with high competence….
Well, I suppose if your metric for how good a President is is, how little did he do?, then Trump would rank pretty high. After all, his incompetence has kept him from actually accomplishing most of the things that he has tried to do.
Of course, it can take some mental gymnastics to equate incompetence with high competence….
But Trump seems more than willing to overstep the bounds of the role of president.
But Trump seems more than willing to overstep the bounds of the role of president.
willing? Certainly. In intent, he would seem to be a libertarian’s worst nightmare.
But able? Not so much.
willing? Certainly. In intent, he would seem to be a libertarian’s worst nightmare.
But able? Not so much.
SFJ-fka-Clickbait doesn’t seem to have the remotest shred of a clue what the role of the president is in the first place. Or, doesn’t care. It’s hard to tell which it really is.
SFJ-fka-Clickbait doesn’t seem to have the remotest shred of a clue what the role of the president is in the first place. Or, doesn’t care. It’s hard to tell which it really is.
From a libertarian point of view, some of the best presidents are the ones nobody remembers.
Said Charlie, when asked why he got a zero on his history exam…
From a libertarian point of view, some of the best presidents are the ones nobody remembers.
Said Charlie, when asked why he got a zero on his history exam…
I might have a comment stuck in the hopper, maybe one and then another attempt at the first one.
If they don’t show, that’s OK, probably better that way.
Andrew Jackson was the last President who made me consider swallowing bleach.
fixed
I might have a comment stuck in the hopper, maybe one and then another attempt at the first one.
If they don’t show, that’s OK, probably better that way.
Andrew Jackson was the last President who made me consider swallowing bleach.
fixed
From a libertarian point of view, everything is considered at a level of abstraction that renders such consideration of no practical value.
From a libertarian point of view, everything is considered at a level of abstraction that renders such consideration of no practical value.
My vote for best President of the United States is ….. every single American who has ever lived … what is that, 700 million people or so …. but who never became President, even though each, any one of us, could have grown up to be President if they set their minds to it, Beav, but spent their lives and whittling time KNOWING they could be much, much, better, why virtually the perfect STFU better President unlike the 45 losers who knew nothing, wouldn’t know how to govern a country if it came up and bit them, haven’t a single blessed clue, unlike the 700 million or so barflies down at the end of the bar, some of them editorial writers, lobbyists, bloggers, foghorn leghorns of one sort or another, most just every day know-it-alls these two plus centuries adamantine in their flawless and virgin certainty and judgement regarding what the 45 shoulda done iffn the 700 million had walked in the shoes of the dreadful 45.
It’s lucky we didn’t, else we wouldn’t remain perfectly puttin our pants on two legs at a time exceptional in our own pristine minds.
Barkeep, drinks all around.
What are the bums gonna do next.
I elected them, and can’t predict one way or another, but whatever it is, you know what I would do ….?
Why, I’d …
My vote for best President of the United States is ….. every single American who has ever lived … what is that, 700 million people or so …. but who never became President, even though each, any one of us, could have grown up to be President if they set their minds to it, Beav, but spent their lives and whittling time KNOWING they could be much, much, better, why virtually the perfect STFU better President unlike the 45 losers who knew nothing, wouldn’t know how to govern a country if it came up and bit them, haven’t a single blessed clue, unlike the 700 million or so barflies down at the end of the bar, some of them editorial writers, lobbyists, bloggers, foghorn leghorns of one sort or another, most just every day know-it-alls these two plus centuries adamantine in their flawless and virgin certainty and judgement regarding what the 45 shoulda done iffn the 700 million had walked in the shoes of the dreadful 45.
It’s lucky we didn’t, else we wouldn’t remain perfectly puttin our pants on two legs at a time exceptional in our own pristine minds.
Barkeep, drinks all around.
What are the bums gonna do next.
I elected them, and can’t predict one way or another, but whatever it is, you know what I would do ….?
Why, I’d …
But Trump seems more than willing to overstep the bounds of the role of president.
“Overstep” assumes (a) an understanding that there are bounds in the first place, (b) an understanding of where they are, and (c) an intention to exceed them.
Trump is just fucking around. He’s like somebody who wandered into the cockpit of a plane while it was flying and started pushing random buttons and pulling on random levers to see what they would do.
“Look at me, I’m a pilot!”
The thing, maybe the only thing, Trump is really good at is turning every situation he’s involved in into the kind of belligerent asinine pissing contest he knows how to win.
Everybody’s good at something.
Apparently, there’s an audience for that kind of thing.
But Trump seems more than willing to overstep the bounds of the role of president.
“Overstep” assumes (a) an understanding that there are bounds in the first place, (b) an understanding of where they are, and (c) an intention to exceed them.
Trump is just fucking around. He’s like somebody who wandered into the cockpit of a plane while it was flying and started pushing random buttons and pulling on random levers to see what they would do.
“Look at me, I’m a pilot!”
The thing, maybe the only thing, Trump is really good at is turning every situation he’s involved in into the kind of belligerent asinine pissing contest he knows how to win.
Everybody’s good at something.
Apparently, there’s an audience for that kind of thing.
The thing, maybe the only thing, Trump is really good at is turning every situation he’s involved in into the kind of belligerent asinine pissing contest he knows how to win.
Brilliant. Sad to say.
The thing, maybe the only thing, Trump is really good at is turning every situation he’s involved in into the kind of belligerent asinine pissing contest he knows how to win.
Brilliant. Sad to say.
Nota bene, Joe Biden.
Nota bene, Joe Biden.
russell: For clarity’s sake, my “Brilliant” referred to your characterization, not to Clickbait’s idiot savantism.
I don’t get what you mean in your 10:51….oh wait, that Joe Biden should take note and prepare accordingly?
russell: For clarity’s sake, my “Brilliant” referred to your characterization, not to Clickbait’s idiot savantism.
I don’t get what you mean in your 10:51….oh wait, that Joe Biden should take note and prepare accordingly?
No worries, Janie, understood.
Yes, Joe Biden would do well to play on his own turf and avoid playing on Trump’s.
Or not, maybe. Could be Joe has some game on Trump’s turf, too.
My own guess is that 95% of everybody already knows how they’re gonna vote, and it’s all gonna come down to getting people to the polls.
No worries, Janie, understood.
Yes, Joe Biden would do well to play on his own turf and avoid playing on Trump’s.
Or not, maybe. Could be Joe has some game on Trump’s turf, too.
My own guess is that 95% of everybody already knows how they’re gonna vote, and it’s all gonna come down to getting people to the polls.
“The thing, maybe the only thing, Trump is really good at is turning every situation he’s involved in into the kind of belligerent asinine pissing contest he knows how to win.”
Exactly. All his life.
Everyone, even those who share his valueless sociopathy just want to get out of the room and away from him, deal in hand or not.
Whether he’s stupid or senile is irrelevant.
He’s working on a level none of us are familiar with. And that’s the one thing he knows. He cannot be fucked with.
America, with its average IQ, decided to dive headfirst in to the mouth of the Nile River infested with this man eating low IQ crocodile.
We are in his predator territory, his waters now.
Who is the smart one?
Him.
The same way over and over again.
He comes at you and rolls you until you go limp and you say fuck it, get me outta here.
Like I’ve said, no one ever in his life had enough broke every bone in his face in a beating to stun him.
Someone broke him, however.
All of it is Trump’s turf.
Staying above it on the surface of the Nile only makes you look like prey.
“The thing, maybe the only thing, Trump is really good at is turning every situation he’s involved in into the kind of belligerent asinine pissing contest he knows how to win.”
Exactly. All his life.
Everyone, even those who share his valueless sociopathy just want to get out of the room and away from him, deal in hand or not.
Whether he’s stupid or senile is irrelevant.
He’s working on a level none of us are familiar with. And that’s the one thing he knows. He cannot be fucked with.
America, with its average IQ, decided to dive headfirst in to the mouth of the Nile River infested with this man eating low IQ crocodile.
We are in his predator territory, his waters now.
Who is the smart one?
Him.
The same way over and over again.
He comes at you and rolls you until you go limp and you say fuck it, get me outta here.
Like I’ve said, no one ever in his life had enough broke every bone in his face in a beating to stun him.
Someone broke him, however.
All of it is Trump’s turf.
Staying above it on the surface of the Nile only makes you look like prey.
Then we have the jackels like McConnell:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/why-mitch-mcconnell-wants-states-go-bankrupt/610714/
This is why I say, against all human decency, which is not a excretory gland in evidence among these republican subhumans and thus is not a defense against them, as much as decent people would like it to be, that elections are not enough to destroy the Trump Republican Party, as needs to be done.
Crocodiles and jackels in opposition are just as deadly … as in killing Americans … via their malign policy goals, aided and abetted by their well-armed paramilitary supporters, as they are in power.
Politics as a game is over.
It’s now life or death.
Then we have the jackels like McConnell:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/why-mitch-mcconnell-wants-states-go-bankrupt/610714/
This is why I say, against all human decency, which is not a excretory gland in evidence among these republican subhumans and thus is not a defense against them, as much as decent people would like it to be, that elections are not enough to destroy the Trump Republican Party, as needs to be done.
Crocodiles and jackels in opposition are just as deadly … as in killing Americans … via their malign policy goals, aided and abetted by their well-armed paramilitary supporters, as they are in power.
Politics as a game is over.
It’s now life or death.
The Trump Republican Party will soon disallow all legal liability tort action across the board against all business enterprises and government.
This imposition by fiat will not be limited in its scope to merely the Covid-19 issue, but will remove all legal liability for all corporate actions harming their employees, customers, and they can only hope, their shareholders as well.
Nor will it be a temporary measure to be sunsetted after this pandemic crisis lifts, just as every tax cut promised as time-limited by these filthy liars as becomes eternal, just as immigration of any kind will not be permitted by to resume once this crisis is over, just as abortion clinics, what’s left of them, in Texas, will ever be permitted to reopen.
The list is endless, while we busy ourselves searching for medical supplies fucking stolen by the Trump crime syndicate.
Much of the American citizenry are being boxed in with no recourse in their lives, and if you add in the fact of voter restrictions and the very real possibility that elections may be canceled or their results ignored if vermin republicans lose them, read history to see what is goddamned coming.
Fuck the Constitution.
There are 600,000 postal workers placing themselves in harm’s way delivering mail every day, except for McKinney’s, to Covid-19 infected and asymptomatic republicans across the country, the latter of whom hate postal workers, like they do teachers, and just about anyone else who isn’t them, except to the extent, like all of the working class, republicans can get more labor out of them while paying less for the privilege of having their asses kissed.
The Trump Republican Party wants to cut their pay, destroy their jobs, and eliminate their pensions.
It’s time for the 600,000 to prepare to go fucking go postal, and I mean that in the original sense of the phrase, not the cute “quote fingers” sense.
The Trump Republican Party will soon disallow all legal liability tort action across the board against all business enterprises and government.
This imposition by fiat will not be limited in its scope to merely the Covid-19 issue, but will remove all legal liability for all corporate actions harming their employees, customers, and they can only hope, their shareholders as well.
Nor will it be a temporary measure to be sunsetted after this pandemic crisis lifts, just as every tax cut promised as time-limited by these filthy liars as becomes eternal, just as immigration of any kind will not be permitted by to resume once this crisis is over, just as abortion clinics, what’s left of them, in Texas, will ever be permitted to reopen.
The list is endless, while we busy ourselves searching for medical supplies fucking stolen by the Trump crime syndicate.
Much of the American citizenry are being boxed in with no recourse in their lives, and if you add in the fact of voter restrictions and the very real possibility that elections may be canceled or their results ignored if vermin republicans lose them, read history to see what is goddamned coming.
Fuck the Constitution.
There are 600,000 postal workers placing themselves in harm’s way delivering mail every day, except for McKinney’s, to Covid-19 infected and asymptomatic republicans across the country, the latter of whom hate postal workers, like they do teachers, and just about anyone else who isn’t them, except to the extent, like all of the working class, republicans can get more labor out of them while paying less for the privilege of having their asses kissed.
The Trump Republican Party wants to cut their pay, destroy their jobs, and eliminate their pensions.
It’s time for the 600,000 to prepare to go fucking go postal, and I mean that in the original sense of the phrase, not the cute “quote fingers” sense.
The Trump Republican Party will soon disallow all legal liability tort action across the board against all business enterprises and government.
Won’t work.
OK, maybe you can shield the government. But not business enterprises. Why not? you ask. Because . . . “Corporations are people, too!”
Oops.
The Trump Republican Party will soon disallow all legal liability tort action across the board against all business enterprises and government.
Won’t work.
OK, maybe you can shield the government. But not business enterprises. Why not? you ask. Because . . . “Corporations are people, too!”
Oops.
wj – the GOP may not be able to bar all legal tort claims against businesses, but they can make the ability to bring suit meaningless by capping awards. As they have been doing for a very long time now.
How about, no matter how much pain and suffering a company has caused (let’s say, e.g., Boeing and the 787 MAX) the only amount awarded to the families can be the extrapolated expected lifetime earnings of each dead passenger. And punitive damages are capped at, let’s say, $500K. Altogether, that is; not per passenger.
Boeing might act differently, if only because airline passengers tend to notice things like planes falling out of the sky because the manufacturer offered vital safety equipment and training as an (expensive!) “option.”
But product liability? Particularly, long term product liability (e.g., Tylenol and liver damage)? A lot of that happens under the radar. Capping damages means that lawsuits cost less than fixing the problem, and become an “acceptable cost” of doing business.
wj – the GOP may not be able to bar all legal tort claims against businesses, but they can make the ability to bring suit meaningless by capping awards. As they have been doing for a very long time now.
How about, no matter how much pain and suffering a company has caused (let’s say, e.g., Boeing and the 787 MAX) the only amount awarded to the families can be the extrapolated expected lifetime earnings of each dead passenger. And punitive damages are capped at, let’s say, $500K. Altogether, that is; not per passenger.
Boeing might act differently, if only because airline passengers tend to notice things like planes falling out of the sky because the manufacturer offered vital safety equipment and training as an (expensive!) “option.”
But product liability? Particularly, long term product liability (e.g., Tylenol and liver damage)? A lot of that happens under the radar. Capping damages means that lawsuits cost less than fixing the problem, and become an “acceptable cost” of doing business.
Liability:
https://juanitajean.com/why-trump-is-not-answering-questions/
I know Clorox, the corporation is not to blame for this. I know the regulators who police Clorox and the libtards who pushed thru product labeling, against the full-throated opposition of most of the Republican Party paid off, sure, by lobbyists hired by Clorox to stave off the cost and funky PR of such labeling, but, Clorox followed the law, once it was the law, unlike the conservative movement today) in case this might happen, even accidentally among stupid people.
But this bleach-guzzling right here, activated from on-high, is a whole ‘nother level of tort.
Think about it.
Revolutions, the guillotine, Johnny Tremain taking potshots from the hedgerows have been among the species of informal torts throughout history.
I don’t own shares in Clorox. But I’ve thought about it.
Liability:
https://juanitajean.com/why-trump-is-not-answering-questions/
I know Clorox, the corporation is not to blame for this. I know the regulators who police Clorox and the libtards who pushed thru product labeling, against the full-throated opposition of most of the Republican Party paid off, sure, by lobbyists hired by Clorox to stave off the cost and funky PR of such labeling, but, Clorox followed the law, once it was the law, unlike the conservative movement today) in case this might happen, even accidentally among stupid people.
But this bleach-guzzling right here, activated from on-high, is a whole ‘nother level of tort.
Think about it.
Revolutions, the guillotine, Johnny Tremain taking potshots from the hedgerows have been among the species of informal torts throughout history.
I don’t own shares in Clorox. But I’ve thought about it.
Apologies, Casey. I neglected to include my
/sarcasm
tag
Apologies, Casey. I neglected to include my
/sarcasm
tag