by russell
How representative are the representatives?
The link above will take you to some simple graphs, comparing the demographic profiles of the population at large, vs those of the (D) and (R) members of Congress, for race, religion, and gender. It will surprise no-one to find that the demographics of the (D)'s in Congress more closely reflect those of the population at large than those of the (R)'s, who are mostly white, male, and Christian.
The (R)'s currently hold the White House and a majority in the Senate. They hold both in spite of the POTUS losing the popular vote, and (R) Senators representing 15 million fewer people than the (D)'s. We are also on our way to a 6-3 conservative majority in the SCOTUS.
The (D)'s do hold a majority in the House.
There doesn't need to be a one-to-one correspondence of demographic details between the population as a whole, and the people who represent them in government. But it does seem reasonable that, in a polity based on representative self-governance, the representatives should be…. representative. At least approximately.
well the founding fathers disagree with you. So do I. There is no logic that says six population centers should set policy for all the other people in the country. They get two Senators like everyone else, and more EC votes.
The reason slaves got counted at 3/5ths wasn’t just slavery. The people in the country didn’t want to be at the mercy of the cities, 20p years ago. That still makes sense.
15 million people is less tha 5 %, spread across 50 states, probably concentrated in 5. The Presidential difference was smaller than that.
Saying 15m sounds big until you consider how many are concentrated in so few places.
well the founding fathers disagree with you. So do I. There is no logic that says six population centers should set policy for all the other people in the country. They get two Senators like everyone else, and more EC votes.
The reason slaves got counted at 3/5ths wasn’t just slavery. The people in the country didn’t want to be at the mercy of the cities, 20p years ago. That still makes sense.
15 million people is less tha 5 %, spread across 50 states, probably concentrated in 5. The Presidential difference was smaller than that.
Saying 15m sounds big until you consider how many are concentrated in so few places.
The founders thought that only white men with property should vote.
I’m also pretty sure that women, people of color, and non-Christians live in states with smaller populations.
My point overall, and apparently my theme for the day, is that rule by minority interest is not sustainable.
The founders thought that only white men with property should vote.
I’m also pretty sure that women, people of color, and non-Christians live in states with smaller populations.
My point overall, and apparently my theme for the day, is that rule by minority interest is not sustainable.
Cities don’t vote. People in cities vote.
Marty thinks he deserves to be more of a person than me.
It’s been his most consistent policy position.
He’s still in favor of the 3/5ths rule, he’s just not colorist about it.
Cities don’t vote. People in cities vote.
Marty thinks he deserves to be more of a person than me.
It’s been his most consistent policy position.
He’s still in favor of the 3/5ths rule, he’s just not colorist about it.
nous, exactly.
nous, exactly.
There we go, and here we are.
There we go, and here we are.
A little something for those who have been getting exercised about “defund police”: At Trump’s direction, Bill Barr is trying to defund the police. The Justice Department on Monday labeled the cities of Portland, Ore., New York and Seattle as “anarchist jurisdictions that have permitted violence and destruction of property,” targeting them for possible cuts in federal funding,
Real, unequivocal defunding for police. And actually being done, not just talked about. Interesting.
A little something for those who have been getting exercised about “defund police”: At Trump’s direction, Bill Barr is trying to defund the police. The Justice Department on Monday labeled the cities of Portland, Ore., New York and Seattle as “anarchist jurisdictions that have permitted violence and destruction of property,” targeting them for possible cuts in federal funding,
Real, unequivocal defunding for police. And actually being done, not just talked about. Interesting.
One thing it is not is “interesting”.
Unless you believe confederate militias firing on Fort Sumter was merely “interesting”.
One thing it is not is “interesting”.
Unless you believe confederate militias firing on Fort Sumter was merely “interesting”.
I found it interesting as yet another of example of how you can predict Trump bad behavior simply by seeing what he is (usually baselessly) accusing opponents of doing.
I found it interesting as yet another of example of how you can predict Trump bad behavior simply by seeing what he is (usually baselessly) accusing opponents of doing.
There is no logic that says six population centers should set policy for all the other people in the country.
The flip side of this is, there is even less logic that says people in WY or KY or KS or whatever other small states you want to name can set policy for the hundreds of millions of people who don’t live in those places.
The people represented by Trump and by the (R)’s in Congress – the people who voted for them – are entitled to a voice in governance. They are not entitled to rule. They are not entitled to thwart every other voice and point of view.
I have the “at the mercy of the cities” conversation with my sister now and then. She doesn’t want to be at the mercy of the people who live in the big cities.
She lives in Phoenix. Metro Phoenix is something like 4.1 million people. It’s the 10th largest metro area in the country.
So I’m at a loss to explain who the “people in the cities” are that she is disturbed by. Or what it is they are doing that disturbs her, other than moving to Phoenix from somewhere else, just like she and her husband did 40 years ago.
If you don’t like cities, don’t live in one. If you want to be left alone, move to the country. People do it. I know people who do it. City people aren’t bugging them.
If you want to be utterly unaffected by the interests or actions of anybody else in the country, however, you’re probably not gonna get your wish.
I don’t. None of the people living in the big scary cities do, either. Nobody does.
There is no logic that says six population centers should set policy for all the other people in the country.
The flip side of this is, there is even less logic that says people in WY or KY or KS or whatever other small states you want to name can set policy for the hundreds of millions of people who don’t live in those places.
The people represented by Trump and by the (R)’s in Congress – the people who voted for them – are entitled to a voice in governance. They are not entitled to rule. They are not entitled to thwart every other voice and point of view.
I have the “at the mercy of the cities” conversation with my sister now and then. She doesn’t want to be at the mercy of the people who live in the big cities.
She lives in Phoenix. Metro Phoenix is something like 4.1 million people. It’s the 10th largest metro area in the country.
So I’m at a loss to explain who the “people in the cities” are that she is disturbed by. Or what it is they are doing that disturbs her, other than moving to Phoenix from somewhere else, just like she and her husband did 40 years ago.
If you don’t like cities, don’t live in one. If you want to be left alone, move to the country. People do it. I know people who do it. City people aren’t bugging them.
If you want to be utterly unaffected by the interests or actions of anybody else in the country, however, you’re probably not gonna get your wish.
I don’t. None of the people living in the big scary cities do, either. Nobody does.
She lives in Phoenix. Metro Phoenix is something like 4.1 million people. It’s the 10th largest metro area in the country.
So I’m at a loss to explain who the “people in the cities” are that she is disturbed by.
Not to put words in her mouth, of course. But there really only seem to be two groups those “people in the cities” might actually be:
1) black people,
2) liberal people.
Of course, there are increasing numbers of both in Phoenix. So those living there who are disturbed by them will have to adjust. Or rephrase their view so as to justify restricting voting in their state. (And it appears that that ship has sailed. Or, at least, cast off from the dock.)
She lives in Phoenix. Metro Phoenix is something like 4.1 million people. It’s the 10th largest metro area in the country.
So I’m at a loss to explain who the “people in the cities” are that she is disturbed by.
Not to put words in her mouth, of course. But there really only seem to be two groups those “people in the cities” might actually be:
1) black people,
2) liberal people.
Of course, there are increasing numbers of both in Phoenix. So those living there who are disturbed by them will have to adjust. Or rephrase their view so as to justify restricting voting in their state. (And it appears that that ship has sailed. Or, at least, cast off from the dock.)
In my sister’s case, I don’t think skin color comes into it.
Liberal people, yes.
But mostly I think it’s just people from CA.
In my sister’s case, I don’t think skin color comes into it.
Liberal people, yes.
But mostly I think it’s just people from CA.
Shorter Marty: R votes should count for more than D votes, otherwise the party which represents fewer people couldn’t win elections.
Shorter Marty: R votes should count for more than D votes, otherwise the party which represents fewer people couldn’t win elections.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/09/23/donald-trumps-favorite-voting-machines/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
Do NOT steal this election, conservatives.
If you do, or even try, each one of you and your children will be held culpable for the savage violent vengeance that is wrought and the death of America.
Trump and his conservative lackeys and the do-nothing both-sides-do-it excusers of EVIL will cease and desist NOW.
Stop.
Now.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/09/23/donald-trumps-favorite-voting-machines/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
Do NOT steal this election, conservatives.
If you do, or even try, each one of you and your children will be held culpable for the savage violent vengeance that is wrought and the death of America.
Trump and his conservative lackeys and the do-nothing both-sides-do-it excusers of EVIL will cease and desist NOW.
Stop.
Now.
Marty,
Your argument would make sense in the EU. European Union is a confederation of multiple countries, with widely separate cultures, their own militaries and actual sovereignty. There, it makes sense that each state actually requires its own share of decision-making power as a state simply because it could decide to be fully independent.
In the US, most states are artificial creations of the federal government, and even the originally independent states are not really sovereign nor have a sense of being separate nations. This is also reflected in the national politics, where opinion differences of national level issues dominate state-level concerns.
And even in EU, the power distribution between the states is much more democratic than in the US. The Council, which is the upper house of our legislature, votes with a system where every delegate has votes in accordance to their country’s population. To get a decision, 55 % of the countries, representing 65 % of the population must vote for it. This is a good and tried system: the German League, and the upper houses of German legislatures since 1867 have used variations of it.
Marty,
Your argument would make sense in the EU. European Union is a confederation of multiple countries, with widely separate cultures, their own militaries and actual sovereignty. There, it makes sense that each state actually requires its own share of decision-making power as a state simply because it could decide to be fully independent.
In the US, most states are artificial creations of the federal government, and even the originally independent states are not really sovereign nor have a sense of being separate nations. This is also reflected in the national politics, where opinion differences of national level issues dominate state-level concerns.
And even in EU, the power distribution between the states is much more democratic than in the US. The Council, which is the upper house of our legislature, votes with a system where every delegate has votes in accordance to their country’s population. To get a decision, 55 % of the countries, representing 65 % of the population must vote for it. This is a good and tried system: the German League, and the upper houses of German legislatures since 1867 have used variations of it.
There is no logic that says six population centers should set policy for all the other people in the country.
deliberate discrimination based on residence.
at least you’re honest about it.
There is no logic that says six population centers should set policy for all the other people in the country.
deliberate discrimination based on residence.
at least you’re honest about it.
“The people
in the countryon the reservation didn’t want to be at the mercy of the cities, 20p years ago. That still makes sense.”Therefore every Native American should have 30 million votes.
“The people
in the countryon the reservation didn’t want to be at the mercy of the cities, 20p years ago. That still makes sense.”Therefore every Native American should have 30 million votes.
when i grow up i want to be a barren parcel of land which conveys over-representation upon whomever squats on me.
when i grow up i want to be a barren parcel of land which conveys over-representation upon whomever squats on me.
“This is also reflected in the national politics, where opinion differences of national level issues dominate state-level concerns.”
This is only true because of the completely invalid assumptions about the makeup of our states. Most were admitted or created/admitted based on some sense of regional identification. State identity is somewhat tamped by the transient nature of some people, but NC, Mass, Texas. certainly still have strong state identification, as do all states. Our system works fine. If the Dems get in charge you will never here of this issue again.
“This is also reflected in the national politics, where opinion differences of national level issues dominate state-level concerns.”
This is only true because of the completely invalid assumptions about the makeup of our states. Most were admitted or created/admitted based on some sense of regional identification. State identity is somewhat tamped by the transient nature of some people, but NC, Mass, Texas. certainly still have strong state identification, as do all states. Our system works fine. If the Dems get in charge you will never here of this issue again.
Our system works fine.
Donald Trump is our POTUS. He’s enacted inhumane policies against desperate, powerless immigrants, has completely fumbled the response to a global pandemic, leaving more than 200K Americans dead and counting, has stoked racial and cultural divisions and encouraged armed white supremacists, has severely diminished the country’s standing in the global community, has turned the justice department into a political weapon, and has generally debased the ethical standards and the decorum we should expect from someone holding national high office (or even a small-town mayor).
And now we have QAnon adherents running for office.
Our system works fine.
Donald Trump is our POTUS. He’s enacted inhumane policies against desperate, powerless immigrants, has completely fumbled the response to a global pandemic, leaving more than 200K Americans dead and counting, has stoked racial and cultural divisions and encouraged armed white supremacists, has severely diminished the country’s standing in the global community, has turned the justice department into a political weapon, and has generally debased the ethical standards and the decorum we should expect from someone holding national high office (or even a small-town mayor).
And now we have QAnon adherents running for office.
it’s fine because it lets an overrepresented minority tyrannize the majority. just as John Adams intended.
Marty would certainly not complain at all if the representation were on the other foot.
it’s fine because it lets an overrepresented minority tyrannize the majority. just as John Adams intended.
Marty would certainly not complain at all if the representation were on the other foot.
If the Dems get in charge you will never here of this issue again.
True ‘dat…right after we confiscate all your guns, obliterate all state lines, abolish ICE and customs and open the borders (like it was in the good old days), grant all power to the President (just like the GOP wants!), dismantle our armed forces, defund the police, make rioting legal, open the jails, make abortions mandatory, condemn all straight white males to re-education camps, and abolish the system of private property, and mandate the transfer of all of our wealth to blacks, Native Americans, and some Hispanics (if deemed worthy).
So yes, arguments about malapportionment will be small potatoes….hardly worth discussing.
If the Dems get in charge you will never here of this issue again.
True ‘dat…right after we confiscate all your guns, obliterate all state lines, abolish ICE and customs and open the borders (like it was in the good old days), grant all power to the President (just like the GOP wants!), dismantle our armed forces, defund the police, make rioting legal, open the jails, make abortions mandatory, condemn all straight white males to re-education camps, and abolish the system of private property, and mandate the transfer of all of our wealth to blacks, Native Americans, and some Hispanics (if deemed worthy).
So yes, arguments about malapportionment will be small potatoes….hardly worth discussing.
If all that were factually true hsh, then in a working system he would be voted out in a few weeks.
So we will see right?
If all that were factually true hsh, then in a working system he would be voted out in a few weeks.
So we will see right?
If the Dems get in charge you will never here of this issue again.
maybe not.
and since the (D)’s appear to be more closely representative of the population – i.e., We The People – that might be appropriate.
in a working system he would be voted out in a few weeks.
yes, in a working system, he would be gone as of January 2021. and I note that hsh omitted tax cheat and fraudster, obstructor of justice, violator of election rules, and liar. also, ignoramus.
so yes, we’ll see. we’ll find out a lot of things come November.
If the Dems get in charge you will never here of this issue again.
maybe not.
and since the (D)’s appear to be more closely representative of the population – i.e., We The People – that might be appropriate.
in a working system he would be voted out in a few weeks.
yes, in a working system, he would be gone as of January 2021. and I note that hsh omitted tax cheat and fraudster, obstructor of justice, violator of election rules, and liar. also, ignoramus.
so yes, we’ll see. we’ll find out a lot of things come November.
The Republican line is that if the constitution says it OK, anything goes.
Except they want a permanent majority on the SC to say what the Constitution says.
The Republican line is that if the constitution says it OK, anything goes.
Except they want a permanent majority on the SC to say what the Constitution says.
If the Dems get in charge you will never here of this issue again.
Also, I’m not sure what you think “the issue” is, is accurate.
My point here is not that the Senate per se is unrepresentative. It is, but that’s not what I’m trying to call out here.
My point is that the (R) party is abusing the structure of government defined by our Constitution to impose minority rule.
They do not represent most people in this country. Yet, they choose to govern as if they speak for most people in this country. As if they had the legitimacy that would come with speaking for most people in this country.
They do not have that legitimacy.
The situation as it stands is not sustainable.
If the Dems get in charge you will never here of this issue again.
Also, I’m not sure what you think “the issue” is, is accurate.
My point here is not that the Senate per se is unrepresentative. It is, but that’s not what I’m trying to call out here.
My point is that the (R) party is abusing the structure of government defined by our Constitution to impose minority rule.
They do not represent most people in this country. Yet, they choose to govern as if they speak for most people in this country. As if they had the legitimacy that would come with speaking for most people in this country.
They do not have that legitimacy.
The situation as it stands is not sustainable.
The Republican line is that if the constitution says it OK, anything goes.
Except they want a permanent majority on the SC to say what the Constitution says.
heads: i win.
tails: fuck you.
The Republican line is that if the constitution says it OK, anything goes.
Except they want a permanent majority on the SC to say what the Constitution says.
heads: i win.
tails: fuck you.
If all that were factually true hsh, then in a working system he would be voted out in a few weeks.
Or, in a working system, such an obvious malevolent fraud would never get to the highest office in the land in the first place.
If all that were factually true hsh, then in a working system he would be voted out in a few weeks.
Or, in a working system, such an obvious malevolent fraud would never get to the highest office in the land in the first place.
The reason slaves got counted as 3/5th’s was not to limit the power of cities, but to limit the disproportionate power of rural slaveholding states. They originally wanted their enslaved people to count as whole persons for the purpose of representation. The compromise was 3/5th’s in order to get buy-in to the Constitution.
The reason slaves got counted as 3/5th’s was not to limit the power of cities, but to limit the disproportionate power of rural slaveholding states. They originally wanted their enslaved people to count as whole persons for the purpose of representation. The compromise was 3/5th’s in order to get buy-in to the Constitution.
Funny that this would pop up not only when discussing how representative congress is of the nation, but after russell mentions his sister who lives in Phoenix.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/517701-how-fast-population-growth-made-arizona-a-swing-state
We’ve had previous discussions about the advantage rural states have in senate representation and the electoral college, during which someone or other has suggested (only half seriously?) that people from NY or CA move to places like Wyoming and take over the state politically.
I don’t think people have moved to AZ for political reasons, but they’re taking over politically none the less.
Barry Goldwater has non-zero angular velocity in his burial chamber.
Funny that this would pop up not only when discussing how representative congress is of the nation, but after russell mentions his sister who lives in Phoenix.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/517701-how-fast-population-growth-made-arizona-a-swing-state
We’ve had previous discussions about the advantage rural states have in senate representation and the electoral college, during which someone or other has suggested (only half seriously?) that people from NY or CA move to places like Wyoming and take over the state politically.
I don’t think people have moved to AZ for political reasons, but they’re taking over politically none the less.
Barry Goldwater has non-zero angular velocity in his burial chamber.
Our legislative bodies, from bottom to top, favor people who are older and wealthier, hence more likely male and white. It’s not necessarily intentional or evil, it’s that young people trying to build professional careers or hourly wage slaves just can’t afford to take six months off work to campaign, or two years off work to serve a term, or twelve years to serve several. As I used to say when I was a state legislative staffer, the system makes it possible for a ranch owner to run but not for a ranch hand. I have no idea how to fix that fundamental problem.
Our legislative bodies, from bottom to top, favor people who are older and wealthier, hence more likely male and white. It’s not necessarily intentional or evil, it’s that young people trying to build professional careers or hourly wage slaves just can’t afford to take six months off work to campaign, or two years off work to serve a term, or twelve years to serve several. As I used to say when I was a state legislative staffer, the system makes it possible for a ranch owner to run but not for a ranch hand. I have no idea how to fix that fundamental problem.
here is what appears, to me, to be a fact of life:
areas with high population density tend to be more “liberal”, in the sense of supporting a larger role for government in daily life.
areas with low population density, the opposite.
it makes sense for places with high population density to provide basic services through public initiative, because everybody doing everything for themselves doesn’t scale well.
it makes sense for places with low population density to not expect government to do all of that, because it’s less practical for government to do all of that in that context.
people should live where they want. people should live how they want.
maybe the interests of people in the big cities are running roughshod over those in the country in ways that totally outstrip the other way around, but if so, I’m not seeing it.
maybe somebody can enlighten me.
in the meantime, I’d like the (R)’s to have their hold on the executive and their majority in the Senate removed. so that we can get on with the million other things that need doing.
here is what appears, to me, to be a fact of life:
areas with high population density tend to be more “liberal”, in the sense of supporting a larger role for government in daily life.
areas with low population density, the opposite.
it makes sense for places with high population density to provide basic services through public initiative, because everybody doing everything for themselves doesn’t scale well.
it makes sense for places with low population density to not expect government to do all of that, because it’s less practical for government to do all of that in that context.
people should live where they want. people should live how they want.
maybe the interests of people in the big cities are running roughshod over those in the country in ways that totally outstrip the other way around, but if so, I’m not seeing it.
maybe somebody can enlighten me.
in the meantime, I’d like the (R)’s to have their hold on the executive and their majority in the Senate removed. so that we can get on with the million other things that need doing.
Clone AOC ?
Clone AOC ?
From The Atlantic, h/t Balloon-Juice:
“According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.
“With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.”
From The Atlantic, h/t Balloon-Juice:
“According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.
“With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.”
Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote
this is how you get a civil war.
i know where the closest gun store is.
Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote
this is how you get a civil war.
i know where the closest gun store is.
Casey:
Then savage civil war it is.
The both-sides-do-it crowd, from their immaculate perches high above the fray, can look down on the carnage and see if the number of dead ham sandwiches precisely equals the number of dead election-stealing subhuman fascist combovers and we’ll just have to continue the slaughter until the death toll is precisely even so they can gloat afterwards.
America will be a smoking rubble.
Casey:
Then savage civil war it is.
The both-sides-do-it crowd, from their immaculate perches high above the fray, can look down on the carnage and see if the number of dead ham sandwiches precisely equals the number of dead election-stealing subhuman fascist combovers and we’ll just have to continue the slaughter until the death toll is precisely even so they can gloat afterwards.
America will be a smoking rubble.
Trump in 2016:
“How will he decide when the time comes? Trump has answered that, actually. At a rally in Delaware, Ohio, in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, he began his performance with a signal of breaking news. “Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make a major announcement today. I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election.” He paused, then made three sharp thrusts of his forefinger to punctuate the next words: “If … I … win!” Only then did he stretch his lips in a simulacrum of a smile.”
I attended college in Delaware, Ohio, back when we had the guts to shut down vermin conservative fascism in that little town.
Trump in 2016:
“How will he decide when the time comes? Trump has answered that, actually. At a rally in Delaware, Ohio, in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, he began his performance with a signal of breaking news. “Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make a major announcement today. I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election.” He paused, then made three sharp thrusts of his forefinger to punctuate the next words: “If … I … win!” Only then did he stretch his lips in a simulacrum of a smile.”
I attended college in Delaware, Ohio, back when we had the guts to shut down vermin conservative fascism in that little town.
The gun stores, nearly all of them, are run by conservative scum.
Trump and Barr and fake murderous christian Pence will order them to decline all sales to anyone except their fellow political vermin.
All permits at the federal level will be screened to determine political affiliation as much as possible.
We’re dead.
The gun stores, nearly all of them, are run by conservative scum.
Trump and Barr and fake murderous christian Pence will order them to decline all sales to anyone except their fellow political vermin.
All permits at the federal level will be screened to determine political affiliation as much as possible.
We’re dead.
Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.
US Constitution, Article II.
I believe this clause is still operative. If so, it could well be that what is described in Casey’s cite would pass legal and constitutional muster. Or at least close enough to completely FUBAR the outcome.
This is why it is time for the Electoral College to be removed. Whatever value or merit it ever had is no longer relevant. At this point, it is a lever that allows an extremely small and unrepresentative slice of the population to determine who sits in the White House.
Tens of thousands of voters, in a handful of swing states, elect the POTUS.
I have no idea if what the Atlantic is reporting is true or not. True or not, I find it credible, because it’s entirely consistent with Trump’s character, and with the behavior of the (R) party.
If they want to burn the whole fucking thing down, they are welcome to try this on.
We’ll find out all kinds of things in November.
Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.
US Constitution, Article II.
I believe this clause is still operative. If so, it could well be that what is described in Casey’s cite would pass legal and constitutional muster. Or at least close enough to completely FUBAR the outcome.
This is why it is time for the Electoral College to be removed. Whatever value or merit it ever had is no longer relevant. At this point, it is a lever that allows an extremely small and unrepresentative slice of the population to determine who sits in the White House.
Tens of thousands of voters, in a handful of swing states, elect the POTUS.
I have no idea if what the Atlantic is reporting is true or not. True or not, I find it credible, because it’s entirely consistent with Trump’s character, and with the behavior of the (R) party.
If they want to burn the whole fucking thing down, they are welcome to try this on.
We’ll find out all kinds of things in November.
The gun stores, nearly all of them, are run by conservative scum.
curbside pickup at Dick’s !
The gun stores, nearly all of them, are run by conservative scum.
curbside pickup at Dick’s !
Furthermore, Trump will by executive order deny all blue states and cities the Covid-19 vaccines, whenever they come to be.
He may even order that areas of the country he deems his mortal enemies will be sent placebo vaccines instead, the better to improve his conservative vote counts in 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028 and on … until savage violence erupts.
Furthermore, Trump will by executive order deny all blue states and cities the Covid-19 vaccines, whenever they come to be.
He may even order that areas of the country he deems his mortal enemies will be sent placebo vaccines instead, the better to improve his conservative vote counts in 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028 and on … until savage violence erupts.
my own feeling about all of this talk of civil war is that I’ll be damned if I will get shot, or will shoot anybody else, over Donald J Trump.
there are, undoubtedly, better paths forward available. at a minimum, other paths. while they still exist, I’m not interested in killing anybody.
my own feeling about all of this talk of civil war is that I’ll be damned if I will get shot, or will shoot anybody else, over Donald J Trump.
there are, undoubtedly, better paths forward available. at a minimum, other paths. while they still exist, I’m not interested in killing anybody.
There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Trump and the Republican Party from stealing an American Presidential election.
On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the violent overthrow of a corruptly malignant government that seizes power via stolen elections.
Get this, we are living in a moment, this very moment, when the very institution that can arrest us for tampering with or destroying the US Mail is the very institution that has been ordered to tamper with and destroy the US Mail.
McKinney Texas asked the other day what will we have left if we continue down this road.
We will have nothing.
No, Madam, you don’t deserve to keep it if you allow brigands to keep pissing on it.
Does Dick’s provide curbside pickups of nuclear warheads?
Or do I have to depend on the fucking corrupted US Post Office to steal those?
Cease and desist Republican Party, today, not tomorrow, not November 2, not November 4, not Inauguration Day 2021, right this fucking minute, because you will not like it when both sides actually DO do it.
There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Trump and the Republican Party from stealing an American Presidential election.
On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the violent overthrow of a corruptly malignant government that seizes power via stolen elections.
Get this, we are living in a moment, this very moment, when the very institution that can arrest us for tampering with or destroying the US Mail is the very institution that has been ordered to tamper with and destroy the US Mail.
McKinney Texas asked the other day what will we have left if we continue down this road.
We will have nothing.
No, Madam, you don’t deserve to keep it if you allow brigands to keep pissing on it.
Does Dick’s provide curbside pickups of nuclear warheads?
Or do I have to depend on the fucking corrupted US Post Office to steal those?
Cease and desist Republican Party, today, not tomorrow, not November 2, not November 4, not Inauguration Day 2021, right this fucking minute, because you will not like it when both sides actually DO do it.
How Americans murder their fellow Americans:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/number-of-states-reporting-covid-19-surges-more-than-doubles-in-one-week?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
…. while practicing their murderous fake Christian and Randian/Friedman prosperity gospel:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/xtreme-manufacturing-company-fined-for-indoor-trump-rally-cashes-in-on-covid-19?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-young-show-south-dakotas-next-potential-coronavirus-superspreader-event-sponsored-by-sanford-health
Throw in a little child pornography and you have the perfect setup for QAnon and republican accomplices to commit mass murder, when they are the ones who should be slaughtered.
How Americans murder their fellow Americans:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/number-of-states-reporting-covid-19-surges-more-than-doubles-in-one-week?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
…. while practicing their murderous fake Christian and Randian/Friedman prosperity gospel:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/xtreme-manufacturing-company-fined-for-indoor-trump-rally-cashes-in-on-covid-19?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-young-show-south-dakotas-next-potential-coronavirus-superspreader-event-sponsored-by-sanford-health
Throw in a little child pornography and you have the perfect setup for QAnon and republican accomplices to commit mass murder, when they are the ones who should be slaughtered.
. To get a decision, 55 % of the countries, representing 65 % of the population must vote for it.
I rather liked this detail that Lu offered up about the EU. If the senate did that (perhaps with a tweak to the numbers) we’d have a much more representative system. And, I suspect, less obstructionism. Ranked choice voting might be helpful — just by forcing people at the state level to work on achieving co-operation with those around them.
. To get a decision, 55 % of the countries, representing 65 % of the population must vote for it.
I rather liked this detail that Lu offered up about the EU. If the senate did that (perhaps with a tweak to the numbers) we’d have a much more representative system. And, I suspect, less obstructionism. Ranked choice voting might be helpful — just by forcing people at the state level to work on achieving co-operation with those around them.
From what I’ve seen, people fall for some obvious bullsh*t with alarming regularity. And it’s not exclusive to people on the right, though it appears to be significantly worse on the right than the left (if I can be so binary for the sake of simplicity)
That’s one of the things that’s changed ober my lifetime. When I was in college, it was the left buying obvious bull. The good news is, that means the right could get over it, to a significant degree, too. (Perhaps those who made the relocation from left bull to right bull will now move on to libertarian bull. Seems at least as natural a fit.)
From what I’ve seen, people fall for some obvious bullsh*t with alarming regularity. And it’s not exclusive to people on the right, though it appears to be significantly worse on the right than the left (if I can be so binary for the sake of simplicity)
That’s one of the things that’s changed ober my lifetime. When I was in college, it was the left buying obvious bull. The good news is, that means the right could get over it, to a significant degree, too. (Perhaps those who made the relocation from left bull to right bull will now move on to libertarian bull. Seems at least as natural a fit.)
The compromise was 3/5th’s in order to get buy-in to the Constitution.
At the time the founders thought support for slavery would diminish and it would eventually end. What they couldn’t foresee was the invention of the cotton gin and how it would leverage slavery.
The compromise was 3/5th’s in order to get buy-in to the Constitution.
At the time the founders thought support for slavery would diminish and it would eventually end. What they couldn’t foresee was the invention of the cotton gin and how it would leverage slavery.
“At the time the founders thought support for slavery would diminish and it would eventually end. What they couldn’t foresee was the invention of the cotton gin and how it would leverage slavery.”
Then so much for Originalism, since they thought the original would pass.
The Founders couldn’t find their asses with both hands.
Perfectly understandable, they being products of their times. Great thinkers, no doubt about it.
They happened upon the eternal in various places, but those were just educated guesses.
Money talks with protected speech was NOT an eternal finding. Carrying modern military weaponry in public, or even possessing it, was not an eternal finding, nor was it foreseen, despite the vague similarity between a bullet and a comma.
So, why is that document, which is going to permit the stealing of a Presidential election in 2020, and has been permitting gross unconstitutional corruption without interruption or petition by this lout, judging me after all this time.
If Socrates had been a Founder, does that mean we would keep swallowing hemlock, or Novichok as the case may be, every time a tyrant like Trump and his branded conservative movement say so?
Just to preserve an order that doesn’t deserve to be preserved and we ASSUME may pass on its own, like slavery.
“At the time the founders thought support for slavery would diminish and it would eventually end. What they couldn’t foresee was the invention of the cotton gin and how it would leverage slavery.”
Then so much for Originalism, since they thought the original would pass.
The Founders couldn’t find their asses with both hands.
Perfectly understandable, they being products of their times. Great thinkers, no doubt about it.
They happened upon the eternal in various places, but those were just educated guesses.
Money talks with protected speech was NOT an eternal finding. Carrying modern military weaponry in public, or even possessing it, was not an eternal finding, nor was it foreseen, despite the vague similarity between a bullet and a comma.
So, why is that document, which is going to permit the stealing of a Presidential election in 2020, and has been permitting gross unconstitutional corruption without interruption or petition by this lout, judging me after all this time.
If Socrates had been a Founder, does that mean we would keep swallowing hemlock, or Novichok as the case may be, every time a tyrant like Trump and his branded conservative movement say so?
Just to preserve an order that doesn’t deserve to be preserved and we ASSUME may pass on its own, like slavery.
Also right on cue:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/think-the-electoral-college-is-unfair-to-democrats-try-the-senate/
No excerpts. It’s a video (only 2.5 minutes).
Also right on cue:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/think-the-electoral-college-is-unfair-to-democrats-try-the-senate/
No excerpts. It’s a video (only 2.5 minutes).
One thing I can describe is that they use four categories – urban, suburban, exurban, and rural – for the population. They each comprise roughly a quarter of the population, with urban and rural each comprising 25% (exactly a quarter, but I’m sure rounded to a whole-number percentage).
Suburban and exurban populations are roughly represented in proportion to the percentages of the total population they include. But urban voters get only 14% of the representation, while rural voters get 35%. That’s cool with Marty and John Adams, I guess.
One thing I can describe is that they use four categories – urban, suburban, exurban, and rural – for the population. They each comprise roughly a quarter of the population, with urban and rural each comprising 25% (exactly a quarter, but I’m sure rounded to a whole-number percentage).
Suburban and exurban populations are roughly represented in proportion to the percentages of the total population they include. But urban voters get only 14% of the representation, while rural voters get 35%. That’s cool with Marty and John Adams, I guess.
All Men are created equal, but their effective equality decreases as their proximity to other Men increases.
That’s just the way it is, libs.
All Men are created equal, but their effective equality decreases as their proximity to other Men increases.
That’s just the way it is, libs.
Also right on cue
I have a different idea, maybe a better idea, than adding new states, trying to convince people from urban areas to Montana, or any of the other suggestions Silver makes in the video.
(D)’s need to get out into rural areas of the country and argue for why their policies are better than (R)’s.
Republican policies are not actually that great for rural voters. Democrats can argue for universal broadband, health and education services, support for small farmers, support for people who are not currently farmers but might like to be. Democrats support action on climate change, which will be nothing but good for the stability of agriculture. Democrats can argue for best environmental practices in agriculture, which helps small farmers and farmers who actually want to maintain the productive quality of the land.
Rural areas are underserved. (R)’s offer culture wars. (D)’s can offer services, because they aren’t afraid of an active government.
If the DNC had been paying attention to blue-collar and rural communities in 2016, we would not be in this mess.
It would not take flipping all that many seats to get the (D)’s an enduring majority in both the House and the Senate.
Focus on that. It’s an easier, cheaper, and more enduring goal than adding states.
Not saying that states should or should not be added, just saying that that should happen on its own merits.
Also right on cue
I have a different idea, maybe a better idea, than adding new states, trying to convince people from urban areas to Montana, or any of the other suggestions Silver makes in the video.
(D)’s need to get out into rural areas of the country and argue for why their policies are better than (R)’s.
Republican policies are not actually that great for rural voters. Democrats can argue for universal broadband, health and education services, support for small farmers, support for people who are not currently farmers but might like to be. Democrats support action on climate change, which will be nothing but good for the stability of agriculture. Democrats can argue for best environmental practices in agriculture, which helps small farmers and farmers who actually want to maintain the productive quality of the land.
Rural areas are underserved. (R)’s offer culture wars. (D)’s can offer services, because they aren’t afraid of an active government.
If the DNC had been paying attention to blue-collar and rural communities in 2016, we would not be in this mess.
It would not take flipping all that many seats to get the (D)’s an enduring majority in both the House and the Senate.
Focus on that. It’s an easier, cheaper, and more enduring goal than adding states.
Not saying that states should or should not be added, just saying that that should happen on its own merits.
I was more focused on the current math of representation than the “solutions” suggested. Silver did mention, very briefly, convincing rural voters to vote D, but pretty much blew it off as “having a cost.”
My guess is he goes into the other stuff because it’s illustrative of how the math works.
I was more focused on the current math of representation than the “solutions” suggested. Silver did mention, very briefly, convincing rural voters to vote D, but pretty much blew it off as “having a cost.”
My guess is he goes into the other stuff because it’s illustrative of how the math works.
I was more focused on the current math of representation
Yes, the Senate is, inherently and by design, undemocratic.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. Maybe it still is, maybe it isn’t, but unless we want to tear up the Constitution and start over with a clean sheet of paper, it’s not going away.
(D)’s need to win more Senate races. They won’t win more Senate races if they don’t build a constituency in the states where they currently don’t have one.
Nothing stops them from building that constituency. They won’t win over everybody, and they don’t need to. They need to persuade some. And that is do-able.
I’ll also note that urban and suburban communities are not inherently magically (D). I grew up mostly in Suffolk County, on Long Island in NY. That is absolutely in the NYC orbit, and is Trump territory now.
See also Staten Island.
All kinds of people live everywhere. The (D)’s have, in my opinion, neglected blue collar and rural communities. Not in terms of policy, but in terms of showing up.
That is fixable.
I was more focused on the current math of representation
Yes, the Senate is, inherently and by design, undemocratic.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. Maybe it still is, maybe it isn’t, but unless we want to tear up the Constitution and start over with a clean sheet of paper, it’s not going away.
(D)’s need to win more Senate races. They won’t win more Senate races if they don’t build a constituency in the states where they currently don’t have one.
Nothing stops them from building that constituency. They won’t win over everybody, and they don’t need to. They need to persuade some. And that is do-able.
I’ll also note that urban and suburban communities are not inherently magically (D). I grew up mostly in Suffolk County, on Long Island in NY. That is absolutely in the NYC orbit, and is Trump territory now.
See also Staten Island.
All kinds of people live everywhere. The (D)’s have, in my opinion, neglected blue collar and rural communities. Not in terms of policy, but in terms of showing up.
That is fixable.
hsh. Thats not a working system, it would be a perfect system. Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve hsd.
hsh. Thats not a working system, it would be a perfect system. Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve hsd.
Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve hsd.
He’s far worse than anyone in the modern era, and probably the worst ever that was actually elected. (Andrew Johnson might have been as bad, but he was anointed by John Wilkes Booth.)
Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve hsd.
He’s far worse than anyone in the modern era, and probably the worst ever that was actually elected. (Andrew Johnson might have been as bad, but he was anointed by John Wilkes Booth.)
They won’t win more Senate races if they don’t build a constituency in the states where they currently don’t have one.
There actually isn’t a state where they don’t have one. Even Wyoming has a substantial Democratic constituency. (West Virginia, the next reddest, already has a D Senator. Although that’s probably an anomaly. Albeit one that helps.) So they wouldn’t be starting building something from scratch. Just expanding on what they already have. Which is much more doable.
They won’t win more Senate races if they don’t build a constituency in the states where they currently don’t have one.
There actually isn’t a state where they don’t have one. Even Wyoming has a substantial Democratic constituency. (West Virginia, the next reddest, already has a D Senator. Although that’s probably an anomaly. Albeit one that helps.) So they wouldn’t be starting building something from scratch. Just expanding on what they already have. Which is much more doable.
I very seriously considered moving to a Red area when I retire, mostly because those areas are far less expensive.
But since the RWNJs and GOPers in general have gone entirely off the deep end, I no longer feel safe (single Jewish woman, very liberal, unwilling to suffer fools at all) doing so. Now I’m confining my acceptable non-liberal geography to bluish-purple.
I very seriously considered moving to a Red area when I retire, mostly because those areas are far less expensive.
But since the RWNJs and GOPers in general have gone entirely off the deep end, I no longer feel safe (single Jewish woman, very liberal, unwilling to suffer fools at all) doing so. Now I’m confining my acceptable non-liberal geography to bluish-purple.
Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve hsd.
he might be the first one to float the idea that Russia’s intel services are better than our own; or that he might not leave the WH if he doesn’t feel like it; or that he’s working to “bypass election results”.
but still, Democrats, amirite?
Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve hsd.
he might be the first one to float the idea that Russia’s intel services are better than our own; or that he might not leave the WH if he doesn’t feel like it; or that he’s working to “bypass election results”.
but still, Democrats, amirite?
Re the FiveThirtyEight numbers… I pulled down their table and sorted it based on the sum of the urban plus suburban numbers. The top 20 are dominated by the 13-state West and the 12-state Northeast urban corridor (two from the South, two from the Midwest, eight each from the West and the urban corridor). Top four in order are California, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York. IIRC those four are also the densest using the Census Bureau’s new “built area” statistics.
Trump won only five of those top 20 in 2016, and Biden is currently leading in the polls in three of those.
Re the FiveThirtyEight numbers… I pulled down their table and sorted it based on the sum of the urban plus suburban numbers. The top 20 are dominated by the 13-state West and the 12-state Northeast urban corridor (two from the South, two from the Midwest, eight each from the West and the urban corridor). Top four in order are California, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York. IIRC those four are also the densest using the Census Bureau’s new “built area” statistics.
Trump won only five of those top 20 in 2016, and Biden is currently leading in the polls in three of those.
but them Democrats, amirite?
but them Democrats, amirite?
Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve hsd.
LOL
Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve hsd.
LOL
Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve had.
This is certainly true. But it is also true that there can be lots of bad ones, and he can still be (as he is) the worst.
Just like it’s true that he isn’t the first corrupt President we’ve had. But he’s definitely displaced Harding at the head of the line.
Trump isn’t the first bad President we’ve had.
This is certainly true. But it is also true that there can be lots of bad ones, and he can still be (as he is) the worst.
Just like it’s true that he isn’t the first corrupt President we’ve had. But he’s definitely displaced Harding at the head of the line.
Well, Hiroshima, Vietnam and Iraq certainly have to be factored into any ranking of presidential badness.
Trump definitely gets the award for best crazy panto villain, though.
Well, Hiroshima, Vietnam and Iraq certainly have to be factored into any ranking of presidential badness.
Trump definitely gets the award for best crazy panto villain, though.
Bouie expands on his earlier article:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/supreme-court-democrats-constitution-judiciary-jamelle-bouie.html
Rather than picking on any of his particular prescriptions, it’s the general approach which appeals to me. Don’t accept the framing that the Court gets to decide everything; both constitution and history disprove that.
Bouie expands on his earlier article:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/supreme-court-democrats-constitution-judiciary-jamelle-bouie.html
Rather than picking on any of his particular prescriptions, it’s the general approach which appeals to me. Don’t accept the framing that the Court gets to decide everything; both constitution and history disprove that.
Trump definitely gets the award for best crazy panto villain, though.
IT’S BEHIND YOU!
Trump definitely gets the award for best crazy panto villain, though.
IT’S BEHIND YOU!
In terms of actual crimes and people killed I don’t think Trump is the worst, but he has potential. He is definitely the worst human being to ever occupy the WH. Utterly unsuited to have power over anything. Even really bad Presidents seemed to have some set of beliefs about something other than themselves. Trump does not.
But the way he is undermining the legitimacy of the election probably takes him to the top of the trash heap. He seems willing to risk turning the election into a coup simply because he is a hollow contemptible piece of shit who can’t be seen as a loser.
In terms of actual crimes and people killed I don’t think Trump is the worst, but he has potential. He is definitely the worst human being to ever occupy the WH. Utterly unsuited to have power over anything. Even really bad Presidents seemed to have some set of beliefs about something other than themselves. Trump does not.
But the way he is undermining the legitimacy of the election probably takes him to the top of the trash heap. He seems willing to risk turning the election into a coup simply because he is a hollow contemptible piece of shit who can’t be seen as a loser.
Nigel, thanks for the article, and I love Bouie, although I don’t agree with him about everything. I’ll have to consider for awhile this article, and at first look I’m skeptical. Not that I’m against! Just not there yet.
Donald, I agree about some of what you say. That’s often the case.
Nigel, thanks for the article, and I love Bouie, although I don’t agree with him about everything. I’ll have to consider for awhile this article, and at first look I’m skeptical. Not that I’m against! Just not there yet.
Donald, I agree about some of what you say. That’s often the case.
Trump has a way of bringing people together.
Trump has a way of bringing people together.
Trump has a way of bringing people together.
So did Victor Frankenstein.
Trump has a way of bringing people together.
So did Victor Frankenstein.
Tru dat!
Tru dat!
Trump has a way of bringing people together.
silver linings!!
Trump has a way of bringing people together.
silver linings!!
silver linings!!
Since it’s Trump, figure them to turn out to be aluminium or zinc, if you happen to look.
silver linings!!
Since it’s Trump, figure them to turn out to be aluminium or zinc, if you happen to look.
Some characteristically measured hypocrisy from the senator, who will still vote to give Trump another justice before the election to help fix it.
Romney: ‘Unthinkable and unacceptable’ to not commit to peaceful transition of power
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517935-romney-unthinkable-and-unacceptable-to-not-commit-to-peaceful-transition-of
Some characteristically measured hypocrisy from the senator, who will still vote to give Trump another justice before the election to help fix it.
Romney: ‘Unthinkable and unacceptable’ to not commit to peaceful transition of power
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517935-romney-unthinkable-and-unacceptable-to-not-commit-to-peaceful-transition-of
Trump’s policy is clear: “Get rid of the ballots”
Trump’s policy is clear: “Get rid of the ballots”
i really do think this is Trump trolling again.
but even if it is trolling and not the actually planning of a coup, it should be enough to make self-proclaimed patriots give him side-eye. of course they aren’t, because their loyalty is to Team GOP™, not to America.
i really do think this is Trump trolling again.
but even if it is trolling and not the actually planning of a coup, it should be enough to make self-proclaimed patriots give him side-eye. of course they aren’t, because their loyalty is to Team GOP™, not to America.
Trump’s policy is clear: “Get rid of the ballots”
I think we all need to recognize that November through January are probably going to be a parade of crap shows.
Our system works fine.
Our system has flaws. We’re going to see all of them exposed and exploited to a greater degree than any of us have probably seen in our lifetimes.
Trump is a wanna-be dictator. Apparently there is an audience for that, quite a large one, which is a fairly disturbing reality. But he’ll be happy to break anything he can find a way to break if it will help him stay in office, and there are lots of folks who will be happy to help him with that.
He’s not just a bad POTUS, he’s an absurd POTUS. A Bizarro world POTUS. A dystopian sci-fi POTUS.
It’s disgraceful. The fact that he holds his office shames the nation.
The fact that he holds his office tells us, on its face, that our system has flaws. It is, apparently, something short of ‘fine’.
It’s what we have to work with, so we’ll work with it. But this is going to be one weird election.
Trump’s policy is clear: “Get rid of the ballots”
I think we all need to recognize that November through January are probably going to be a parade of crap shows.
Our system works fine.
Our system has flaws. We’re going to see all of them exposed and exploited to a greater degree than any of us have probably seen in our lifetimes.
Trump is a wanna-be dictator. Apparently there is an audience for that, quite a large one, which is a fairly disturbing reality. But he’ll be happy to break anything he can find a way to break if it will help him stay in office, and there are lots of folks who will be happy to help him with that.
He’s not just a bad POTUS, he’s an absurd POTUS. A Bizarro world POTUS. A dystopian sci-fi POTUS.
It’s disgraceful. The fact that he holds his office shames the nation.
The fact that he holds his office tells us, on its face, that our system has flaws. It is, apparently, something short of ‘fine’.
It’s what we have to work with, so we’ll work with it. But this is going to be one weird election.
we had a chance to get rid of the EC in 1969, but the Senate thwarted it.
we had a chance to get rid of the EC in 1969, but the Senate thwarted it.
“but the Senate thwarted it.”
Of course they did, who would vote to make every vote in their state meaningless? Its bad enough with the EC favoring the large states, but you have a chance to make a difference. 60 or 80 Senators would be conceding that their constituents votes simply don’t count.
“but the Senate thwarted it.”
Of course they did, who would vote to make every vote in their state meaningless? Its bad enough with the EC favoring the large states, but you have a chance to make a difference. 60 or 80 Senators would be conceding that their constituents votes simply don’t count.
There have been worse Presidents than Trump, if you include every country in the world since borders were established.
Most of them were butchered and slaughtered.
There have been worse Presidents than Trump, if you include every country in the world since borders were established.
Most of them were butchered and slaughtered.
Of course they did, who would vote to make every vote in their state meaningless?
a two-stage (40% threshold + run-off) system does not make votes meaningless.
Of course they did, who would vote to make every vote in their state meaningless?
a two-stage (40% threshold + run-off) system does not make votes meaningless.
Its bad enough with the EC favoring the large states
Favoring because they get more electoral votes than smaller states? What would you propose to remedy this bad-enough situation?
Its bad enough with the EC favoring the large states
Favoring because they get more electoral votes than smaller states? What would you propose to remedy this bad-enough situation?
people who live near other people don’t count as much as the rugged individualists who certainly don’t take in more Federal tax money than they contribute.
people who live near other people don’t count as much as the rugged individualists who certainly don’t take in more Federal tax money than they contribute.
i really do think this is Trump trolling again.
Maybe. He’s a full-blown narcissist and he’s paranoid. So, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
It seems to be beyond comprehension for many that a person can be simultaneously (1) politically conservative and (2) completely disgusted with Trump.
Further, simply because Trump wants to do something doesn’t make that *something* illegal or unconstitutional.
Similarly, there is no inconsistency, or hypocrisy, in Mitt Romney’s position: Trump plainly has the constitutional authority to nominate a candidate for RBG’s place and the Senate absolutely has the constitutional authority to confirm. Romney is *following* the Constitution. Likewise, Trump does not have the authority to hold over as president unless he is the actual winner. So: legal/constitutional to fill RBG’s seat, not legal to ignore an election result.
The more salient question is whether this is bad form and, if so, how bad on the scale of D.C. badness. I have no idea. But whatever filling RBG’s seat is or is not, the Constitution is not implicated.
Which doesn’t meant that Trump will peacefully leave office if he thinks he won the election, regardless of how irrational that belief might be.
Different answers to different questions.
i really do think this is Trump trolling again.
Maybe. He’s a full-blown narcissist and he’s paranoid. So, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
It seems to be beyond comprehension for many that a person can be simultaneously (1) politically conservative and (2) completely disgusted with Trump.
Further, simply because Trump wants to do something doesn’t make that *something* illegal or unconstitutional.
Similarly, there is no inconsistency, or hypocrisy, in Mitt Romney’s position: Trump plainly has the constitutional authority to nominate a candidate for RBG’s place and the Senate absolutely has the constitutional authority to confirm. Romney is *following* the Constitution. Likewise, Trump does not have the authority to hold over as president unless he is the actual winner. So: legal/constitutional to fill RBG’s seat, not legal to ignore an election result.
The more salient question is whether this is bad form and, if so, how bad on the scale of D.C. badness. I have no idea. But whatever filling RBG’s seat is or is not, the Constitution is not implicated.
Which doesn’t meant that Trump will peacefully leave office if he thinks he won the election, regardless of how irrational that belief might be.
Different answers to different questions.
Most were admitted or created/admitted based on some sense of regional identification.
I don’t think this is true. And what if it is?
Why does that matter for making national policy? Lots of things can be decided at the state and local levels. Fine. Do that.
But when it comes to national matters, war and peace, taxes, most environmental issues, there is no case for giving voters in some states disproportionate power.
As a matter of fact, most of what we think of as regional differences have nothing to do with geography or legitimate regional issues at all. They simply are opinions that are widely held in some areas.
The reason AL is conservative is that a lot of the people who live there are conservative, not that liberal policies harm people in warm climates. If they moved to Maine they would still be conservative.
In other words, most so-called regional interests are not interests at all, but just political views, which deserve weight proportional to the number of people who hold them.
Most were admitted or created/admitted based on some sense of regional identification.
I don’t think this is true. And what if it is?
Why does that matter for making national policy? Lots of things can be decided at the state and local levels. Fine. Do that.
But when it comes to national matters, war and peace, taxes, most environmental issues, there is no case for giving voters in some states disproportionate power.
As a matter of fact, most of what we think of as regional differences have nothing to do with geography or legitimate regional issues at all. They simply are opinions that are widely held in some areas.
The reason AL is conservative is that a lot of the people who live there are conservative, not that liberal policies harm people in warm climates. If they moved to Maine they would still be conservative.
In other words, most so-called regional interests are not interests at all, but just political views, which deserve weight proportional to the number of people who hold them.
It seems to be beyond comprehension for many that a person can be simultaneously (1) politically conservative and (2) completely disgusted with Trump.
It’s beyond my comprehension how someone can be simultaneously (1) politically conservative and (2) not completely disgusted with Trump.
Then again, it’s beyond my comprehension how someone cannot be completely disgusted with Trump, full stop.
It seems to be beyond comprehension for many that a person can be simultaneously (1) politically conservative and (2) completely disgusted with Trump.
It’s beyond my comprehension how someone can be simultaneously (1) politically conservative and (2) not completely disgusted with Trump.
Then again, it’s beyond my comprehension how someone cannot be completely disgusted with Trump, full stop.
Further, simply because Trump wants to do something doesn’t make that *something* illegal or unconstitutional.
This is true. But I don’t know who is arguing against this.
Similarly, there is no inconsistency, or hypocrisy, in Mitt Romney’s position
Just because something isn’t illegal or unconstitutional doesn’t mean it isn’t inconsistent or hypocritical.
Romney is *following* the Constitution.
The Constitution does not require Romney to publicly support Trump’s nominating a SCOTUS justice before the election or to vote to confirm that nominee. So, if he took the opposite position, stating that he didn’t think it was in the best interests of the nation for the president to nominate a SCOTUS justice this close to the election, and that he would join Democrats in voting against that nominee, he would still be *following* the Constitution.
Further, simply because Trump wants to do something doesn’t make that *something* illegal or unconstitutional.
This is true. But I don’t know who is arguing against this.
Similarly, there is no inconsistency, or hypocrisy, in Mitt Romney’s position
Just because something isn’t illegal or unconstitutional doesn’t mean it isn’t inconsistent or hypocritical.
Romney is *following* the Constitution.
The Constitution does not require Romney to publicly support Trump’s nominating a SCOTUS justice before the election or to vote to confirm that nominee. So, if he took the opposite position, stating that he didn’t think it was in the best interests of the nation for the president to nominate a SCOTUS justice this close to the election, and that he would join Democrats in voting against that nominee, he would still be *following* the Constitution.
I don’t think this is true. And what if it is?
Also, too, the most recent state admitted was admitted over 60 years ago, and oldest states a couple centuries ago. I imagine regional identities have changed over the years since any state was admitted, and that they will continue to change. How that bears on the wisdom of the electoral college escapes me.
I don’t think this is true. And what if it is?
Also, too, the most recent state admitted was admitted over 60 years ago, and oldest states a couple centuries ago. I imagine regional identities have changed over the years since any state was admitted, and that they will continue to change. How that bears on the wisdom of the electoral college escapes me.
The Constitution does not *require* Romney to publicly support Trump’s nominating a SCOTUS justice before the election or to vote to confirm that nominee.
The Constitution does not *require* a Senator to vote. A Senator has the option of voting yes, no, abstention or absence. The President–any president–has the constitutional right and power to nominate candidates to fill judicial vacancies. A senator who votes or abstains on the President’s action is well within the Constitution. The best argument against what Trump is doing is that he shouldn’t do it because of past statements by people like Lindsay Graham. It’s not a bad argument. But it’s not a great argument either since the Dems are just as likely to shift views as a matter of convenience or advantage as are the Republicans.
The Constitution does not *require* Romney to publicly support Trump’s nominating a SCOTUS justice before the election or to vote to confirm that nominee.
The Constitution does not *require* a Senator to vote. A Senator has the option of voting yes, no, abstention or absence. The President–any president–has the constitutional right and power to nominate candidates to fill judicial vacancies. A senator who votes or abstains on the President’s action is well within the Constitution. The best argument against what Trump is doing is that he shouldn’t do it because of past statements by people like Lindsay Graham. It’s not a bad argument. But it’s not a great argument either since the Dems are just as likely to shift views as a matter of convenience or advantage as are the Republicans.
Looks like DT is all alone in his election outcome views: hehill.com/homenews/senate/517973-mcconnell-pushes-back-on-trump-there-will-be-an-orderly-transition
Looks like DT is all alone in his election outcome views: hehill.com/homenews/senate/517973-mcconnell-pushes-back-on-trump-there-will-be-an-orderly-transition
But it’s not a great argument either since the Dems are just as likely to shift views as a matter of convenience or advantage as are the Republicans.
this in-the-future mind-reading is sure doing a lot of work among Republicans these days! those lousy Democrats would be just as lousy as we are being, therefore we’re totally justified!
ii suppose it might help assuage the feelings of guilt over having defended the GOP’s transparently phony arguments re: MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND.
But it’s not a great argument either since the Dems are just as likely to shift views as a matter of convenience or advantage as are the Republicans.
this in-the-future mind-reading is sure doing a lot of work among Republicans these days! those lousy Democrats would be just as lousy as we are being, therefore we’re totally justified!
ii suppose it might help assuage the feelings of guilt over having defended the GOP’s transparently phony arguments re: MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND.
Imo Mitch is just oppposed to Jabbabonk being so blatant about it. It’s a wee bit more difficult to get a Bush v. Gore 2.0 and to get the opposition/the people to swallow it, if one loudly announces in advance that and how one intents to rig the process. An advisor sprung out of jail by pardon-in-anything-but-name openly demanding to seize ballot boxes, to prevent people voting by force of arms and to arrest officials and/or candidates from the opposition party before election does not help the appearance of legitimacy either.
Imo Mitch is just oppposed to Jabbabonk being so blatant about it. It’s a wee bit more difficult to get a Bush v. Gore 2.0 and to get the opposition/the people to swallow it, if one loudly announces in advance that and how one intents to rig the process. An advisor sprung out of jail by pardon-in-anything-but-name openly demanding to seize ballot boxes, to prevent people voting by force of arms and to arrest officials and/or candidates from the opposition party before election does not help the appearance of legitimacy either.
Or in short: Mitch is more of a crook than a thug and prefers ‘subtle’ measures behind the scenes.
Or in short: Mitch is more of a crook than a thug and prefers ‘subtle’ measures behind the scenes.
But it’s not a great argument either since the Dems are just as likely to shift views as a matter of convenience or advantage as are the Republicans.
Which would be more convincing if you could point to a case (preferably in the last 50-100 years) where they did.
Otherwise an equal case could be made that any candidate is just as likely to turn out like Trump. And I frankly can’t see you arguing that.
But it’s not a great argument either since the Dems are just as likely to shift views as a matter of convenience or advantage as are the Republicans.
Which would be more convincing if you could point to a case (preferably in the last 50-100 years) where they did.
Otherwise an equal case could be made that any candidate is just as likely to turn out like Trump. And I frankly can’t see you arguing that.
also, with respect to who has appointed more judges in the judiciary: it’s about even right now.
also, with respect to who has appointed more judges in the judiciary: it’s about even right now.
this in-the-future mind-reading is sure doing a lot of work among Republicans these days! those lousy Democrats would be just as lousy as we are being, therefore we’re totally justified!
ii suppose it might help assuage the feelings of guilt over having defended the GOP’s transparently phony arguments re: MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND.
I’m not going to waste my time arguing with a mind that cannot and will not change. Dems never flip flop. They never say one thing and do another. That’s purely a Republican/conservative thing.
Which would be more convincing if you could point to a case (preferably in the last 50-100 years) where they did.
Otherwise an equal case could be made that any candidate is just as likely to turn out like Trump. And I frankly can’t see you arguing that.
Are you seriously arguing that no prominent Dem has flipped on an issue in the last 50 years? What about Obama on gay marriage? I always thought he was lying when he said that he thought marriage was between a man and a woman–so, lying to get votes, but that’s cool, he was awesome otherwise, so no big deal. There are really good videos around showing HRC saying the polar opposite on the same issues and/or denying saying something that she clearly said. Lying, position-changing, it’s fricking universal. Biden’s been on every side of every issue there is.
So, spare me the faux outrage. Both sides suck.
this in-the-future mind-reading is sure doing a lot of work among Republicans these days! those lousy Democrats would be just as lousy as we are being, therefore we’re totally justified!
ii suppose it might help assuage the feelings of guilt over having defended the GOP’s transparently phony arguments re: MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND.
I’m not going to waste my time arguing with a mind that cannot and will not change. Dems never flip flop. They never say one thing and do another. That’s purely a Republican/conservative thing.
Which would be more convincing if you could point to a case (preferably in the last 50-100 years) where they did.
Otherwise an equal case could be made that any candidate is just as likely to turn out like Trump. And I frankly can’t see you arguing that.
Are you seriously arguing that no prominent Dem has flipped on an issue in the last 50 years? What about Obama on gay marriage? I always thought he was lying when he said that he thought marriage was between a man and a woman–so, lying to get votes, but that’s cool, he was awesome otherwise, so no big deal. There are really good videos around showing HRC saying the polar opposite on the same issues and/or denying saying something that she clearly said. Lying, position-changing, it’s fricking universal. Biden’s been on every side of every issue there is.
So, spare me the faux outrage. Both sides suck.
I’m not going to waste my time arguing with a mind that cannot and will not change. Dems never flip flop. They never say one thing and do another. That’s purely a Republican/conservative thing.
pour one out for poor Mr Straw.
I’m not going to waste my time arguing with a mind that cannot and will not change. Dems never flip flop. They never say one thing and do another. That’s purely a Republican/conservative thing.
pour one out for poor Mr Straw.
Here’s a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJAvFr6o2zw
Have fun.
Here’s a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJAvFr6o2zw
Have fun.
who would vote to make every vote in their state meaningless?
If you don’t share the political beliefs of most people in your state, the EC renders your vote meaningless. You might as well stay home. Feel free to show up and do your patriotic duty, but your vote will never, ever, ever be counted for or against any candidate.
You might as well not exist.
Because under the EC, the people do not elect the POTUS. The electors do. And, with two exceptions, if more people in your state vote for somebody else, all of your state’s electors will vote for whoever won the popular vote, in your state.
Your vote is cancelled.
Conservatives in MA? Liberals in WY? Your vote is a nullity. It’s noise. You don’t count.
The EC is not about insuring that every person’s vote matters. On the contrary. The EC in fact makes millions and millions of votes meaningnless.
The EC is about (a) mitigating the strength of votes in states with large populations and (b) providing a backstop for populism run amok.
That’s what it is about.
If those things seem valuable, the EC has value. If they do not, it does not.
Its bad enough with the EC favoring the large states
I have not one freaking idea how to make sense of this statement. Because it is nonsensical.
As you yourself have noted, at length and repeatedly, the point of the EC – it’s primary purpose – is specifically to NOT favor large states.
Perhaps you mis-spoke.
It seems to be beyond comprehension for many that a person can be simultaneously (1) politically conservative and (2) completely disgusted with Trump.
???
Further, simply because Trump wants to do something doesn’t make that *something* illegal or unconstitutional.
See also comments upthread making exactly this point.
who would vote to make every vote in their state meaningless?
If you don’t share the political beliefs of most people in your state, the EC renders your vote meaningless. You might as well stay home. Feel free to show up and do your patriotic duty, but your vote will never, ever, ever be counted for or against any candidate.
You might as well not exist.
Because under the EC, the people do not elect the POTUS. The electors do. And, with two exceptions, if more people in your state vote for somebody else, all of your state’s electors will vote for whoever won the popular vote, in your state.
Your vote is cancelled.
Conservatives in MA? Liberals in WY? Your vote is a nullity. It’s noise. You don’t count.
The EC is not about insuring that every person’s vote matters. On the contrary. The EC in fact makes millions and millions of votes meaningnless.
The EC is about (a) mitigating the strength of votes in states with large populations and (b) providing a backstop for populism run amok.
That’s what it is about.
If those things seem valuable, the EC has value. If they do not, it does not.
Its bad enough with the EC favoring the large states
I have not one freaking idea how to make sense of this statement. Because it is nonsensical.
As you yourself have noted, at length and repeatedly, the point of the EC – it’s primary purpose – is specifically to NOT favor large states.
Perhaps you mis-spoke.
It seems to be beyond comprehension for many that a person can be simultaneously (1) politically conservative and (2) completely disgusted with Trump.
???
Further, simply because Trump wants to do something doesn’t make that *something* illegal or unconstitutional.
See also comments upthread making exactly this point.
Are you seriously arguing that no prominent Dem has flipped on an issue in the last 50 years?
Apologies. I thought we were talking about a specific instance. And of minds being (supposedly) changed for political convenience, rather than an evolving view in the light of new evidence.
Are you seriously arguing that no prominent Dem has flipped on an issue in the last 50 years?
Apologies. I thought we were talking about a specific instance. And of minds being (supposedly) changed for political convenience, rather than an evolving view in the light of new evidence.
WJ, that’s what people always say. Here’s another fun link: detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/08/13/opinion-barack-obamas-filibuster-hypocrisy/3353317001/
WJ, that’s what people always say. Here’s another fun link: detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/08/13/opinion-barack-obamas-filibuster-hypocrisy/3353317001/
Both sides suck.
Careful. You might become a libertarian…
Both sides suck.
Careful. You might become a libertarian…
The President–any president–has the constitutional right and power to nominate candidates to fill judicial vacancies. A senator who votes or abstains on the President’s action is well within the Constitution.
To clarify:
I’m pretty sure that everybody here understands the process by which a SCOTUS seat is filled. I’m sure we all understand that the POTUS is entitled to nominate someone, that the Senate is entitled to review that nomination and forward it to a vote if they wish, and that each Senator is entitled to vote or not, and to vote for or against, as they wish.
None of that is what anybody objects to.
What people find objectionable is Mitch McConnell and the (R)’s in the Senate refusing to do any of that when an extremely popular (D) POTUS made the nomination, and then barely waiting until the body of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was cool before rushing to do so when a (R) POTUS who did not even win the popular vote does so.
Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.
The anger is deserved. And, it’s likely that at some point there will be payback of some kind, and that will also be deserved.
The President–any president–has the constitutional right and power to nominate candidates to fill judicial vacancies. A senator who votes or abstains on the President’s action is well within the Constitution.
To clarify:
I’m pretty sure that everybody here understands the process by which a SCOTUS seat is filled. I’m sure we all understand that the POTUS is entitled to nominate someone, that the Senate is entitled to review that nomination and forward it to a vote if they wish, and that each Senator is entitled to vote or not, and to vote for or against, as they wish.
None of that is what anybody objects to.
What people find objectionable is Mitch McConnell and the (R)’s in the Senate refusing to do any of that when an extremely popular (D) POTUS made the nomination, and then barely waiting until the body of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was cool before rushing to do so when a (R) POTUS who did not even win the popular vote does so.
Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.
The anger is deserved. And, it’s likely that at some point there will be payback of some kind, and that will also be deserved.
Have fun.
straw on sale down at Lowes today?
Have fun.
straw on sale down at Lowes today?
Here’s another fun link
quick ! change the subject !
don’t let people wonder if basing my own current lousy behavior on your imaginary future behavior is bullshit or not!
Here’s another fun link
quick ! change the subject !
don’t let people wonder if basing my own current lousy behavior on your imaginary future behavior is bullshit or not!
Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.
The anger is deserved. And, it’s likely that at some point there will be payback of some kind, and that will also be deserved.
Yes, and I get that. It’s called power politics. If you’ll recall, I began a day or two back noting universal hypocrisy and wishing for a deal. Some conservatives (Jonah Goldberg, David French, George Will) think that is the better route. I’m in that group. The counter-argument is that no one trusts Schumer not to find a ‘changed circumstance’, therefore, that minority view is getting virtually zero traction.
I get their point. Plenty of people here think HRC is a straight-shooter and all round awesome person. There is more than some evidence to the contrary. Partisans–of any stripe–will maintain the purity of their side against most if not all evidence. The Dems, in fact, are quite guilty of this. Both WJC and Biden have been credibly accused by adults with corroboration of sexual assault, but they’re still cool. Kavanaugh, faced with much, much weaker evidence, remains an anathema on the left. Hypocrisy of the worst kind and solid evidence for not trusting Dems.
Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.
The anger is deserved. And, it’s likely that at some point there will be payback of some kind, and that will also be deserved.
Yes, and I get that. It’s called power politics. If you’ll recall, I began a day or two back noting universal hypocrisy and wishing for a deal. Some conservatives (Jonah Goldberg, David French, George Will) think that is the better route. I’m in that group. The counter-argument is that no one trusts Schumer not to find a ‘changed circumstance’, therefore, that minority view is getting virtually zero traction.
I get their point. Plenty of people here think HRC is a straight-shooter and all round awesome person. There is more than some evidence to the contrary. Partisans–of any stripe–will maintain the purity of their side against most if not all evidence. The Dems, in fact, are quite guilty of this. Both WJC and Biden have been credibly accused by adults with corroboration of sexual assault, but they’re still cool. Kavanaugh, faced with much, much weaker evidence, remains an anathema on the left. Hypocrisy of the worst kind and solid evidence for not trusting Dems.
^ chaff
^ chaff
It’s called power politics.
Two way street, that.
Also: in case it’s useful in heading off tangents, I’m happy to stipulate that HRC may not in fact be an all round awesome person.
Also, that WJC was an unprincipled horn-dog in his private life who exploited his office to get laid. Which is true of probably 1 out of 3 people holding national office.
Also, that focusing on Kavanaugh’s frat boy past was off point. Kavanaugh is not a jurist, he is and was a partisan hatchet man, and thus was not an appropriate choice for the bench.
There were other, better choices, equally conservative if not more so. Trump chose a frat boy Federalist party-line drone. Push back was appropriate and to be expected, it was just poorly chosen. IMO.
None of this is about who is more “trustworthy”, there are good guys and creeps on all sides.
It’s about what is going to make the country better, or worse. (R)’s tend to elect POTUS’s who have trouble keeping their staff out of jail, who bleat about the defict while blowing it up, and who seem intent on destroying every national initiative that doesn’t make rich people richer.
So I oppose them. We all make our own choices.
It’s called power politics.
Two way street, that.
Also: in case it’s useful in heading off tangents, I’m happy to stipulate that HRC may not in fact be an all round awesome person.
Also, that WJC was an unprincipled horn-dog in his private life who exploited his office to get laid. Which is true of probably 1 out of 3 people holding national office.
Also, that focusing on Kavanaugh’s frat boy past was off point. Kavanaugh is not a jurist, he is and was a partisan hatchet man, and thus was not an appropriate choice for the bench.
There were other, better choices, equally conservative if not more so. Trump chose a frat boy Federalist party-line drone. Push back was appropriate and to be expected, it was just poorly chosen. IMO.
None of this is about who is more “trustworthy”, there are good guys and creeps on all sides.
It’s about what is going to make the country better, or worse. (R)’s tend to elect POTUS’s who have trouble keeping their staff out of jail, who bleat about the defict while blowing it up, and who seem intent on destroying every national initiative that doesn’t make rich people richer.
So I oppose them. We all make our own choices.
Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.
an anger that is now compounded by the shameless way everyone who defended that position in 2016 has now shrugged it off as if it never happened. and frankly it feels of a piece with Trump’s constant attempts to gaslight the country into a stupor so he can just do what he wants.
but yes, Democrats exist. so nothing matters.
hooray for the view-from-nowhere.
Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.
an anger that is now compounded by the shameless way everyone who defended that position in 2016 has now shrugged it off as if it never happened. and frankly it feels of a piece with Trump’s constant attempts to gaslight the country into a stupor so he can just do what he wants.
but yes, Democrats exist. so nothing matters.
hooray for the view-from-nowhere.
Oops. Another reason not to trust politicians, including Democrats:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/jon-tester-opens-the-door-to-nuking-the-senates-legislative-filibuster/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=second
Oops. Another reason not to trust politicians, including Democrats:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/jon-tester-opens-the-door-to-nuking-the-senates-legislative-filibuster/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=second
Trump cleared 20,000 lies back in July.
good “conservatives” are focused on what Democrats might do in the future, while pretending to be above it all.
Trump cleared 20,000 lies back in July.
good “conservatives” are focused on what Democrats might do in the future, while pretending to be above it all.
Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.
In fairness it should, perhaps, be noted that they are coming to a conclusion about the prospective nominee without a hearing either. Or even knowing who it actually is.
Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.
In fairness it should, perhaps, be noted that they are coming to a conclusion about the prospective nominee without a hearing either. Or even knowing who it actually is.
Another reason not to trust politicians
I can think of lots of reasons to not trust politicians.
“A politician changed his mind” is not one of them.
Live your “pox on both their houses” life, McK. The rest of us will try to keep the place from burning down.
No thanks are expected.
Another reason not to trust politicians
I can think of lots of reasons to not trust politicians.
“A politician changed his mind” is not one of them.
Live your “pox on both their houses” life, McK. The rest of us will try to keep the place from burning down.
No thanks are expected.
It’s ‘mind changing’ when it’s one side, it’s a gross violation of civilized norms when it’s the other side. The point is, all of the lefty whining about double standard won’t hold up under the light of day. The same is true going the other way. What’s laughable are the Cleek’s who seem to think that snark or ramping up the outrage changes the obvious, patent mendacity of his/her own side’s leaders.
No one outside the bubble pays any attention to partisan screamers. No one believes the screamers when they deny their own side’s perfidy but rail about the other side’s.
Dem complaints today about Repubs have been played out in the past going the other way and will repeat in the future going the other way.
Partisan’s take themselves very, very seriously. They become so adept at rationalizing their own BS or dismissing complaints about it, they wind up permanently buying their own BS.
It’s ‘mind changing’ when it’s one side, it’s a gross violation of civilized norms when it’s the other side. The point is, all of the lefty whining about double standard won’t hold up under the light of day. The same is true going the other way. What’s laughable are the Cleek’s who seem to think that snark or ramping up the outrage changes the obvious, patent mendacity of his/her own side’s leaders.
No one outside the bubble pays any attention to partisan screamers. No one believes the screamers when they deny their own side’s perfidy but rail about the other side’s.
Dem complaints today about Repubs have been played out in the past going the other way and will repeat in the future going the other way.
Partisan’s take themselves very, very seriously. They become so adept at rationalizing their own BS or dismissing complaints about it, they wind up permanently buying their own BS.
golly, if only there was somebody who was both infallable and above it all to tell us how dumb we all are.
alas.
welp, back to studying my Marx!
golly, if only there was somebody who was both infallable and above it all to tell us how dumb we all are.
alas.
welp, back to studying my Marx!
more Americans have died in the last 6 months than have died in any 6 month period, ever.
but, the Dems.
more Americans have died in the last 6 months than have died in any 6 month period, ever.
but, the Dems.
more Americans have died in the last 6 months than have died in any 6 month period, ever.
You just can’t keep from showing your ass, can you? How about the Spanish Flu? Not only are you factually incorrect, but Cuomo, Feinstein, DeBlasio–to name three–stepped in it. Trump is a flapping goose, but no one to my knowledge has identified a scientific consensus of a specific protocol in March/April/May that was offered to Trump and which he rejected which has since proven to be so effective that today’s morbidity could have been materially reduced. Since I make my living defending people and companies from *allegations* of negligence and other wrongdoing, and since a lot of that is after-the-fact, second-guessing, I’m used to asking: what was *evidence* that we can all look at, evaluate and agree was tangibly in existence that Trump or anyone else disregarded. Sure, he downplayed CoVID. Sure, his optimism bore no relationship to reality. Sure, his concept of science and medicine is at the kindergarten level, but suppose he said CoVID is the worst thing ever and we need to test our asses off and get a vaccine asap, how would that have affected the body count? Did Cuomo do a great job in NY? Your *evidence*?
The *evidence* from around the world suggests Trump’s contribution was no more outcome-determinative than anyone else’s. If saying stupid things about CoVID somehow made it more virulent, then you’d have an argument, but that isn’t what makes diseases spread. If I’m defending a truck driver, the fact that he believes he is a PERFECT driver is irrelevant to whether he ran a red light. Either he did or he didn’t.
But, acting like Trump could have done *something* different, even if you can’t point to what that might be, is great political theater, and that’s your forte, so don’t change. No one would recognize you.
more Americans have died in the last 6 months than have died in any 6 month period, ever.
You just can’t keep from showing your ass, can you? How about the Spanish Flu? Not only are you factually incorrect, but Cuomo, Feinstein, DeBlasio–to name three–stepped in it. Trump is a flapping goose, but no one to my knowledge has identified a scientific consensus of a specific protocol in March/April/May that was offered to Trump and which he rejected which has since proven to be so effective that today’s morbidity could have been materially reduced. Since I make my living defending people and companies from *allegations* of negligence and other wrongdoing, and since a lot of that is after-the-fact, second-guessing, I’m used to asking: what was *evidence* that we can all look at, evaluate and agree was tangibly in existence that Trump or anyone else disregarded. Sure, he downplayed CoVID. Sure, his optimism bore no relationship to reality. Sure, his concept of science and medicine is at the kindergarten level, but suppose he said CoVID is the worst thing ever and we need to test our asses off and get a vaccine asap, how would that have affected the body count? Did Cuomo do a great job in NY? Your *evidence*?
The *evidence* from around the world suggests Trump’s contribution was no more outcome-determinative than anyone else’s. If saying stupid things about CoVID somehow made it more virulent, then you’d have an argument, but that isn’t what makes diseases spread. If I’m defending a truck driver, the fact that he believes he is a PERFECT driver is irrelevant to whether he ran a red light. Either he did or he didn’t.
But, acting like Trump could have done *something* different, even if you can’t point to what that might be, is great political theater, and that’s your forte, so don’t change. No one would recognize you.
oh golly, McTx is apologize for Trump again!
i might just faint from surprise.
oh golly, McTx is apologize for Trump again!
i might just faint from surprise.
did i say ‘apologizing’? clearly my shock was so great that i mistyped “defending”.
did i say ‘apologizing’? clearly my shock was so great that i mistyped “defending”.
no one to my knowledge has identified a scientific consensus of a specific protocol in March/April/May that was offered to Trump and which he rejected which has since proven to be so effective that today’s morbidity could have been materially reduced.
How to address a pandemic.
Also, this is a blog that is mostly about politics. Most people here are interested in politics, most people here take a position on political issues.
We also talk about baseball and the Beatles and sci-fi, but mostly we talk about politics, and do so from a distinct stance.
Not all the same stance, everybody’s is somewhat different. Some are even markedly different.
But, from a stance.
So it’s kind of annoying to borderline rude to jump in and yell about “partisan screamers”.
If you don’t like either the (R)’s or the (D)’s, fine. If you don’t want to deal with people who are, to a degree more than average, partisan, then you’re in the wrong place.
This is not a request that you go away, you’re welcome here.
But giving people shit for being partisan on ObWi is like going on Etsy and giving people shit for doing crafty stuff.
It’s kind of the point of the place.
As far as “both sides”:
We’re living in a time when the sitting POTUS is publicly floating the idea of not accepting the outcome of the election. And that’s just the latest of a series of outrages against his office, the rule of law, and simple decency.
So as far as I’m concerned, the “both sides” thing is off the table.
Both sides are not the same. Not right now.
If it floats your boat to jump in now and then and give us all a big lecture about what hypocrites we all are, I guess you’re welcome to do so.
But given the circumstances it seems like kind of a puny point to make.
The POTUS is trying to figure out how to break everything so he can stick around to break even more. And the (R)’s have his back, almost to a person.
So I don’t care about HRC, or WJC, or whether John Tester changed his mind about the filibuster.
Call me a hypocrite, I’ll wear it proudly.
no one to my knowledge has identified a scientific consensus of a specific protocol in March/April/May that was offered to Trump and which he rejected which has since proven to be so effective that today’s morbidity could have been materially reduced.
How to address a pandemic.
Also, this is a blog that is mostly about politics. Most people here are interested in politics, most people here take a position on political issues.
We also talk about baseball and the Beatles and sci-fi, but mostly we talk about politics, and do so from a distinct stance.
Not all the same stance, everybody’s is somewhat different. Some are even markedly different.
But, from a stance.
So it’s kind of annoying to borderline rude to jump in and yell about “partisan screamers”.
If you don’t like either the (R)’s or the (D)’s, fine. If you don’t want to deal with people who are, to a degree more than average, partisan, then you’re in the wrong place.
This is not a request that you go away, you’re welcome here.
But giving people shit for being partisan on ObWi is like going on Etsy and giving people shit for doing crafty stuff.
It’s kind of the point of the place.
As far as “both sides”:
We’re living in a time when the sitting POTUS is publicly floating the idea of not accepting the outcome of the election. And that’s just the latest of a series of outrages against his office, the rule of law, and simple decency.
So as far as I’m concerned, the “both sides” thing is off the table.
Both sides are not the same. Not right now.
If it floats your boat to jump in now and then and give us all a big lecture about what hypocrites we all are, I guess you’re welcome to do so.
But given the circumstances it seems like kind of a puny point to make.
The POTUS is trying to figure out how to break everything so he can stick around to break even more. And the (R)’s have his back, almost to a person.
So I don’t care about HRC, or WJC, or whether John Tester changed his mind about the filibuster.
Call me a hypocrite, I’ll wear it proudly.
We’re living in a time when the sitting POTUS is publicly floating the idea of not accepting the outcome of the election.
Perhaps more on point, where his campaign is actively working with some state legislators on how they can go about, after the election (if they don’t like the result), changing the established practices and picking a different set of electors than the one the voters picked.
Having the state legislature do that may be constitutional. But it sure looks like an ex post facto law from here.
We’re living in a time when the sitting POTUS is publicly floating the idea of not accepting the outcome of the election.
Perhaps more on point, where his campaign is actively working with some state legislators on how they can go about, after the election (if they don’t like the result), changing the established practices and picking a different set of electors than the one the voters picked.
Having the state legislature do that may be constitutional. But it sure looks like an ex post facto law from here.
We’re living in a time when the sitting POTUS is publicly floating the idea of not accepting the outcome of the election. And that’s just the latest of a series of outrages against his office, the rule of law, and simple decency.
So as far as I’m concerned, the “both sides” thing is off the table.
Both sides are not the same. Not right now.
Everyone is free to discuss what they want. If the discrete topic is: are the R’s being douche’s by filling RBG’s spot with an election pending?, then discussing that topic is fair game and if it turns out there is plenty of BS to spread around, then that’s fair game too.
Certain peeps here are so in-the-f’ing-tank, their brain is fried. They make an attempt at substantive argument and fall flat on their face. Calling that out is fair game.
Pointing out that positions highly tainted or influenced by partisan preference have their own issues is fair game.
Since I agree with out about Trump, I’m missing your point. But, the subject seems to change a lot when the evidence against a certain side starts to build up. Making a note of that is fair game too.
We’re living in a time when the sitting POTUS is publicly floating the idea of not accepting the outcome of the election. And that’s just the latest of a series of outrages against his office, the rule of law, and simple decency.
So as far as I’m concerned, the “both sides” thing is off the table.
Both sides are not the same. Not right now.
Everyone is free to discuss what they want. If the discrete topic is: are the R’s being douche’s by filling RBG’s spot with an election pending?, then discussing that topic is fair game and if it turns out there is plenty of BS to spread around, then that’s fair game too.
Certain peeps here are so in-the-f’ing-tank, their brain is fried. They make an attempt at substantive argument and fall flat on their face. Calling that out is fair game.
Pointing out that positions highly tainted or influenced by partisan preference have their own issues is fair game.
Since I agree with out about Trump, I’m missing your point. But, the subject seems to change a lot when the evidence against a certain side starts to build up. Making a note of that is fair game too.
The POTUS is trying to figure out how to break everything so he can stick around to break even more. And the (R)’s have his back, almost to a person.
I don’t think that’s quite Trump’s motivation. I think he just wants to stick around so he can keep fooling himself that he’s popular. Nothing more; not even something as substantial as breaking things.
Now for a lot of the Republicans, at least the Republican ideologues, supporting him, breaking things is indeed the whole point. I just think that, from their perspective, Trump isn’t a fellow traveler, just a useful idiot.
The POTUS is trying to figure out how to break everything so he can stick around to break even more. And the (R)’s have his back, almost to a person.
I don’t think that’s quite Trump’s motivation. I think he just wants to stick around so he can keep fooling himself that he’s popular. Nothing more; not even something as substantial as breaking things.
Now for a lot of the Republicans, at least the Republican ideologues, supporting him, breaking things is indeed the whole point. I just think that, from their perspective, Trump isn’t a fellow traveler, just a useful idiot.
Pointing out that positions highly tainted or influenced by partisan preference have their own issues is fair game.
what’s truly awesome about this is that you are absolutely as partisan as anyone else here. any topic that comes up, it’s a near certainty that when you drop in, you’ll do it with a screed that attacks the Dems and defends Trump and the GOP, if not directly than by distraction or by bellowing about how the imaginary Democrats in your head are all in love with Mao or Marx or whatever. you go to the mat for your team on everything. and then you pretend you’re above it all. you’re as hypocritical as anyone here.
Pointing out that positions highly tainted or influenced by partisan preference have their own issues is fair game.
what’s truly awesome about this is that you are absolutely as partisan as anyone else here. any topic that comes up, it’s a near certainty that when you drop in, you’ll do it with a screed that attacks the Dems and defends Trump and the GOP, if not directly than by distraction or by bellowing about how the imaginary Democrats in your head are all in love with Mao or Marx or whatever. you go to the mat for your team on everything. and then you pretend you’re above it all. you’re as hypocritical as anyone here.
moving on…
watching Max Boot seethe is almost as fun for me as watching Rubin:
duh
moving on…
watching Max Boot seethe is almost as fun for me as watching Rubin:
duh
meanwhile…
How to earn your client life in jail.
The kid has a plausible self-defense claim. The naive well-meaning 17 year old narrative is, potentially, sympathetic.
If they want to make this some kind of 2nd Amendment culture war extravaganza, it may not play quite as well.
If I was this kid’s parents, I’d be shopping for new representation. But that’s just me.
meanwhile…
How to earn your client life in jail.
The kid has a plausible self-defense claim. The naive well-meaning 17 year old narrative is, potentially, sympathetic.
If they want to make this some kind of 2nd Amendment culture war extravaganza, it may not play quite as well.
If I was this kid’s parents, I’d be shopping for new representation. But that’s just me.
I like the idea that no matter what Trump did, nothing would have happened differently with regard to COVID. It’s as if there aren’t other countries with leaders who can actually concentrate and plan and influence people’s behavior based on expert advice and whose outcomes have been far better. It’s as though consistently undermining faith in public-health experts doesn’t have any effect on anything. It’s as though holding indoor rallies without masks doesn’t signal to millions of people that they can do whatever the f**k they want.
There’s no national plan or coordination more than six months into this thing, because our POTUS is a f**king heartless moron. But that doesn’t matter. That doesn’t change anything.
Keep tut-tutting everyone for being the bag. Whatever.
I like the idea that no matter what Trump did, nothing would have happened differently with regard to COVID. It’s as if there aren’t other countries with leaders who can actually concentrate and plan and influence people’s behavior based on expert advice and whose outcomes have been far better. It’s as though consistently undermining faith in public-health experts doesn’t have any effect on anything. It’s as though holding indoor rallies without masks doesn’t signal to millions of people that they can do whatever the f**k they want.
There’s no national plan or coordination more than six months into this thing, because our POTUS is a f**king heartless moron. But that doesn’t matter. That doesn’t change anything.
Keep tut-tutting everyone for being the bag. Whatever.
But, the subject seems to change a lot when the evidence against a certain side starts to build up.
I observe a non-stop string of assertions, but no “evidence”.
But, the subject seems to change a lot when the evidence against a certain side starts to build up.
I observe a non-stop string of assertions, but no “evidence”.
Both sides suck.
Careful. You might become a libertarian…
They suck every bit as much. Possibly more.
The faux above the fray pose reminds me a bit of the Mittster.
Both sides suck.
Careful. You might become a libertarian…
They suck every bit as much. Possibly more.
The faux above the fray pose reminds me a bit of the Mittster.
Ok, it isn’t exactly a brilliant debate tactic to misstate what someone says and then go to town on the newly created reality. But, have at it. I get that it isn’t any fun when everyone’s heads are exploding in righteous outrage and then someone comes along and points out inconsistencies and double standards or, in Cleek’s case, just straight up factual ignorance. It’s worse when you don’t have a substantive answer to the fact that Dem’s are no more trustworthy or consistent than Repubs, or in the case of CoVID, Dems screwed up too and no matter how awful DT is, it’s pretty damned difficult to quantify his impact on the outcome.
Bad news kids, just because he’s an all-world asshole doesn’t mean things would be demonstrably better if he was one of the progressive elect. New York state would be Ex. A in support of that last proposition.
When your best and only response is “Trump is the worst ever!”, no matter what the particular issue happens to be, it’s actually worse than no response at all. Because someday DT will be gone. Then what will your answer be?
Ok, it isn’t exactly a brilliant debate tactic to misstate what someone says and then go to town on the newly created reality. But, have at it. I get that it isn’t any fun when everyone’s heads are exploding in righteous outrage and then someone comes along and points out inconsistencies and double standards or, in Cleek’s case, just straight up factual ignorance. It’s worse when you don’t have a substantive answer to the fact that Dem’s are no more trustworthy or consistent than Repubs, or in the case of CoVID, Dems screwed up too and no matter how awful DT is, it’s pretty damned difficult to quantify his impact on the outcome.
Bad news kids, just because he’s an all-world asshole doesn’t mean things would be demonstrably better if he was one of the progressive elect. New York state would be Ex. A in support of that last proposition.
When your best and only response is “Trump is the worst ever!”, no matter what the particular issue happens to be, it’s actually worse than no response at all. Because someday DT will be gone. Then what will your answer be?
to. the. mat.
to. the. mat.
Bad news kids
Old straight white man condescends to everyone else. News at eleven.
JHC people, go outside and let this guy talk to his phantoms.
Bad news kids
Old straight white man condescends to everyone else. News at eleven.
JHC people, go outside and let this guy talk to his phantoms.
McKinney, has it occurred to you that you’re rather selective in your criticisms of people here who are particularly partisan (or who think HRC was “all-round awesome” – I think those were your words, I’m not going to go back to check)?
And that no matter how many times people here (like me) tell you that they believe Juanita Broadrick, Paula Jones etc, you still conveniently forget this when making your arguments about us partisan Dems?
Truly, what russell says is right: Trump is so far outside what any POTUS ever has been capable of, and yet is still being supported by the GOP in lockstep, despite, to give just one example, trampling all over their vaunted concern with the deficit. What possible sense can your bothsideserism make under these circumstances, if not an attempt to distract us from your having shared so many of their views in the past?
As for Trump and Covid, do you imagine that it is random chance that explains how e.g. Germany, with a population of 83 million, and proximity to (and sizeable participation in) some of the original spread-hotspots in ski resorts in Italy, has a figure of 112 deaths per million, flatlining since end April, versus the US at 610 per million and rising? Do you imagine that the German scientists and epidemiologists were keeping their thinking secret? Newsflash: they weren’t.
McKinney, has it occurred to you that you’re rather selective in your criticisms of people here who are particularly partisan (or who think HRC was “all-round awesome” – I think those were your words, I’m not going to go back to check)?
And that no matter how many times people here (like me) tell you that they believe Juanita Broadrick, Paula Jones etc, you still conveniently forget this when making your arguments about us partisan Dems?
Truly, what russell says is right: Trump is so far outside what any POTUS ever has been capable of, and yet is still being supported by the GOP in lockstep, despite, to give just one example, trampling all over their vaunted concern with the deficit. What possible sense can your bothsideserism make under these circumstances, if not an attempt to distract us from your having shared so many of their views in the past?
As for Trump and Covid, do you imagine that it is random chance that explains how e.g. Germany, with a population of 83 million, and proximity to (and sizeable participation in) some of the original spread-hotspots in ski resorts in Italy, has a figure of 112 deaths per million, flatlining since end April, versus the US at 610 per million and rising? Do you imagine that the German scientists and epidemiologists were keeping their thinking secret? Newsflash: they weren’t.
just straight up factual ignorance.
lol. fine, i didn’t double-check a fact.
it’s the Marxist in me.
just straight up factual ignorance.
lol. fine, i didn’t double-check a fact.
it’s the Marxist in me.
sealioning
sealioning
Because someday DT will be gone. Then what will your answer be?
He may be gone, but the people who supported his every move, despite it contradicting everything conservatives have always said they believed in, won’t be.
Because someday DT will be gone. Then what will your answer be?
He may be gone, but the people who supported his every move, despite it contradicting everything conservatives have always said they believed in, won’t be.
Old straight white man condescends to everyone else.
Including other old, straight, white men — which is a good chunk of the folks here.
Old straight white man condescends to everyone else.
Including other old, straight, white men — which is a good chunk of the folks here.
Including other old, straight, white men
hey, i won’t be 50 for another 100 hours.
Including other old, straight, white men
hey, i won’t be 50 for another 100 hours.
Sealioning
An absolutely excellent, and very necessary, word. Thanks cleek!
Sealioning
An absolutely excellent, and very necessary, word. Thanks cleek!
When your best and only response is “Trump is the worst ever!”
Well, it does cover a lot of ground.
Then what will your answer be?
I’m sure the (R)’s will find some other incompetent crook for us to complain about. They seem to have a deep bench in that department.
Who knows, maybe it’ll be another Trump, they seem to want to make a new family business out of it.
Including other old, straight, white men
Yes, of course, because there can be only one top dog.
And I’m well aware that #notalloldstraightwhitemen are like that.
An image came to mind a few minutes ago of the Maine legislature’s judiciary committee hearing in 2009, when several thousand people jammed the Augusta Civic Center to testify and/or witness re: gay marriage. There were people on the other side whose “testimony” was so vile that a large portion of the audience silently stood up and turned their backs. A somewhat different message than “don’t bite hooks.”
P.S. Happy almost birthday to cleek!
When your best and only response is “Trump is the worst ever!”
Well, it does cover a lot of ground.
Then what will your answer be?
I’m sure the (R)’s will find some other incompetent crook for us to complain about. They seem to have a deep bench in that department.
Who knows, maybe it’ll be another Trump, they seem to want to make a new family business out of it.
Including other old, straight, white men
Yes, of course, because there can be only one top dog.
And I’m well aware that #notalloldstraightwhitemen are like that.
An image came to mind a few minutes ago of the Maine legislature’s judiciary committee hearing in 2009, when several thousand people jammed the Augusta Civic Center to testify and/or witness re: gay marriage. There were people on the other side whose “testimony” was so vile that a large portion of the audience silently stood up and turned their backs. A somewhat different message than “don’t bite hooks.”
P.S. Happy almost birthday to cleek!
It’s worse when you don’t have a substantive answer to the fact that Dem’s are no more trustworthy or consistent than Repubs
I’m in the fortunate position of not trying to prove that (D)’s are more trustworthy or consistent than (R)’s.
I think their policies are better. So they get my support.
And Trump is sui generis. He is bad beyond all consideration of party affiliation.
The (R)’s just happen to have rolled out the red carpet for him. So now they own the freaking mess he is making of governance and of the country.
no matter how awful DT is, it’s pretty damned difficult to quantify his impact on the outcome.
A lot of people, tens of thousands of people, are dead, from COVID, because Donald J Trump is a vain flaming asshole.
If you want to say De Blasio and Cuomo and whoever else owns some of that, fine with me. Trump owns more.
Trump had the information he needed, he had the power of the presidency and the ample resources of the United States of America – both public and private sectors – to work with.
And he sat on his fat ass and let people die.
Jared made a few side deals to help his buddies get just a bit richer, just to put a cherry on top of it.
What you’re selling here, I ain’t buying. And you haven’t said anything here to make me think your knowledge or understanding of any of this is any deeper or more accurate than mine.
You’re just here to yell at us for not being sufficiently impartial, apparently.
It’s not the time for impartiality.
It’s worse when you don’t have a substantive answer to the fact that Dem’s are no more trustworthy or consistent than Repubs
I’m in the fortunate position of not trying to prove that (D)’s are more trustworthy or consistent than (R)’s.
I think their policies are better. So they get my support.
And Trump is sui generis. He is bad beyond all consideration of party affiliation.
The (R)’s just happen to have rolled out the red carpet for him. So now they own the freaking mess he is making of governance and of the country.
no matter how awful DT is, it’s pretty damned difficult to quantify his impact on the outcome.
A lot of people, tens of thousands of people, are dead, from COVID, because Donald J Trump is a vain flaming asshole.
If you want to say De Blasio and Cuomo and whoever else owns some of that, fine with me. Trump owns more.
Trump had the information he needed, he had the power of the presidency and the ample resources of the United States of America – both public and private sectors – to work with.
And he sat on his fat ass and let people die.
Jared made a few side deals to help his buddies get just a bit richer, just to put a cherry on top of it.
What you’re selling here, I ain’t buying. And you haven’t said anything here to make me think your knowledge or understanding of any of this is any deeper or more accurate than mine.
You’re just here to yell at us for not being sufficiently impartial, apparently.
It’s not the time for impartiality.
What possible sense can your bothsideserism make under these circumstances, if not an attempt to distract us from your having shared so many of their views in the past?
When the issue was: the R’s are gross hypocrites for refusing Garland a hearing under the pretext of a pending election and then granting the hearing to Trump’s nominee, I did three things: (1) I agreed the R’s are hypocrites, (2) I pointed out that nothing the R’s did or are doing violates the Constitution and (3) I pointed out that the Dem’s pull the same hypocritical shit, e.g. (a) the filibuster, which is DOA if the Dems flip the Senate, although throughout their minority in the Senate, the filibuster was the bomb, a bulwark of representative democracy and (b) having a presidential nominee whose sexual assault accusations are far more compelling than those against Kavanaugh. Plus, the Dem’s are a pack of liars. Just like the R’s. Trump’s an outlier, but that doesn’t make everyone who opposes him a saint. Nor is DT the proximate cause of every shitty thing on the planet. The left is adding its own shit here and there. It’s the f’ing moral preening and carrying on like the lefties have all the right answers and anyone who doesn’t buy their/your BS is a moral leper that I find laughable.
What possible sense can your bothsideserism make under these circumstances, if not an attempt to distract us from your having shared so many of their views in the past?
When the issue was: the R’s are gross hypocrites for refusing Garland a hearing under the pretext of a pending election and then granting the hearing to Trump’s nominee, I did three things: (1) I agreed the R’s are hypocrites, (2) I pointed out that nothing the R’s did or are doing violates the Constitution and (3) I pointed out that the Dem’s pull the same hypocritical shit, e.g. (a) the filibuster, which is DOA if the Dems flip the Senate, although throughout their minority in the Senate, the filibuster was the bomb, a bulwark of representative democracy and (b) having a presidential nominee whose sexual assault accusations are far more compelling than those against Kavanaugh. Plus, the Dem’s are a pack of liars. Just like the R’s. Trump’s an outlier, but that doesn’t make everyone who opposes him a saint. Nor is DT the proximate cause of every shitty thing on the planet. The left is adding its own shit here and there. It’s the f’ing moral preening and carrying on like the lefties have all the right answers and anyone who doesn’t buy their/your BS is a moral leper that I find laughable.
A lot of people, tens of thousands of people, are dead, from COVID, because Donald J Trump is a vain flaming asshole.
And, considering how things have gone in every other developed country, it isn’t really possible to dispute that. (Unless you want to blame one of his other faults, of course.) But regardless, he’s demonstrably the root of the problem.
I suppose that you could argue that the Democrats have someone anywhere in prospect who is as bad. (And that they would embrace him.) But the name of an individual, and evidence, will be required. Not saying it’s not possible, just that I’m not aware of one.
A lot of people, tens of thousands of people, are dead, from COVID, because Donald J Trump is a vain flaming asshole.
And, considering how things have gone in every other developed country, it isn’t really possible to dispute that. (Unless you want to blame one of his other faults, of course.) But regardless, he’s demonstrably the root of the problem.
I suppose that you could argue that the Democrats have someone anywhere in prospect who is as bad. (And that they would embrace him.) But the name of an individual, and evidence, will be required. Not saying it’s not possible, just that I’m not aware of one.
remember when the vast liberal media complex told the country that C19 was a hoax and that they should ignore the warnings
darned factual inaccuracies! McTx, the arbiter of truth, is never going to let them live that down, i bet.
remember when the vast liberal media complex told the country that C19 was a hoax and that they should ignore the warnings
darned factual inaccuracies! McTx, the arbiter of truth, is never going to let them live that down, i bet.
Trump is unambiguously a fascist. He has made it as plain as day that he approves of what Hitler and Mussolini did to keep power once they got it. He will intimidate opposition voters. He will make it as hard as he can for opposition voters to vote. He will encourage his supporters to vote more than once. If he can, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will keep him in power whatever the result of the Presidential election.
Trump is old and stupid, but the US should not rely on that to save it. If he retains power after the forthcoming election, his successor will be younger, brighter, but with the same political instincts. And it may be too late to stop them.
It is the duty of every non-fascist to oppose Trump in every way they can. Even if that means voting to stop Trump doing something the US Constitution allows.
Trump is unambiguously a fascist. He has made it as plain as day that he approves of what Hitler and Mussolini did to keep power once they got it. He will intimidate opposition voters. He will make it as hard as he can for opposition voters to vote. He will encourage his supporters to vote more than once. If he can, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will keep him in power whatever the result of the Presidential election.
Trump is old and stupid, but the US should not rely on that to save it. If he retains power after the forthcoming election, his successor will be younger, brighter, but with the same political instincts. And it may be too late to stop them.
It is the duty of every non-fascist to oppose Trump in every way they can. Even if that means voting to stop Trump doing something the US Constitution allows.
By the way, everyone, have I missed somebody other than Tara Reade accusing Biden of sexual assault? Last I heard she was a frequent liar and (semi)-fraudster/grifter. Not that that invalidates her accusation of course, but as regards reliable testimony, Christine Blasey-Ford seemed a pretty compelling, highly respectable witness to me. I’m sincerely asking here what I have missed: is there anyone other than Tara Reade, and if not, what makes her accusation so compelling? I’m happy to be educated by anybody, not excepting McKinney.
By the way, everyone, have I missed somebody other than Tara Reade accusing Biden of sexual assault? Last I heard she was a frequent liar and (semi)-fraudster/grifter. Not that that invalidates her accusation of course, but as regards reliable testimony, Christine Blasey-Ford seemed a pretty compelling, highly respectable witness to me. I’m sincerely asking here what I have missed: is there anyone other than Tara Reade, and if not, what makes her accusation so compelling? I’m happy to be educated by anybody, not excepting McKinney.
that’s another $50 to Biden and $50 to Patricia Timmons-Goodson (who is running to oust the deplorable class-A wingnut and woman who never let a chance to lie about a liberal pass her by: Virginia Foxx) !
keep em coming. i can do this forever.
that’s another $50 to Biden and $50 to Patricia Timmons-Goodson (who is running to oust the deplorable class-A wingnut and woman who never let a chance to lie about a liberal pass her by: Virginia Foxx) !
keep em coming. i can do this forever.
McTX’s posts always go better for me when I imagine them being team read by John Houseman as Charles W. Kingfield and Andy Griffith as Ben Matlock.
McTX’s posts always go better for me when I imagine them being team read by John Houseman as Charles W. Kingfield and Andy Griffith as Ben Matlock.
have I missed somebody other than Tara Reade accusing Biden of sexual assault?
there were a few early last year. but of those, only Reade goes much beyond “hugged me a little too long”. and, my favorite:
the scoundrel!
have I missed somebody other than Tara Reade accusing Biden of sexual assault?
there were a few early last year. but of those, only Reade goes much beyond “hugged me a little too long”. and, my favorite:
the scoundrel!
Moody’s compares GOP economic plans to The Dems’ and…
so much socialism! (warnings about which must be based in absolute 100% objective fact because McTx never says anything that isn’t a 100% verified indisputable fact).
Moody’s compares GOP economic plans to The Dems’ and…
so much socialism! (warnings about which must be based in absolute 100% objective fact because McTx never says anything that isn’t a 100% verified indisputable fact).
Thanks, cleek. So if it was only Tara Reade, I wonder what McKinney thinks makes her allegations “far more compelling than those against Kavanaugh”. He must have some reason, which (based as I am out of the US, and frequently missing days of US news) is not evident to me. Perhaps I have missed some development which cast substantial doubt on Christine Blasey-Ford?
Thanks, cleek. So if it was only Tara Reade, I wonder what McKinney thinks makes her allegations “far more compelling than those against Kavanaugh”. He must have some reason, which (based as I am out of the US, and frequently missing days of US news) is not evident to me. Perhaps I have missed some development which cast substantial doubt on Christine Blasey-Ford?
that’s another $50 to Biden and $50 to Patricia Timmons-Goodson
This thread has put some $$$$ in Espy’s campaign as well.
Keep ’em coming!!
Also, FWIW, yes, the Tara Reade accusation is apparently what McK brought up.
Reade made claims that deserved a hearing, but she was not a great witness. As in, her attorney dropped her as a client because she was not a great witness.
And that’s pretty much where it stands. If there’s more to it, I’m sure we’ll hear about it.
And speaking of cancel culture, since we always seem to need to, Blasey-Ford has had to move 4 times, hire private security, and leave her teaching position, since giving her testimony.
Just thought I’d mention that, since we hadn’t heard much on the cancel culture front yet today.
that’s another $50 to Biden and $50 to Patricia Timmons-Goodson
This thread has put some $$$$ in Espy’s campaign as well.
Keep ’em coming!!
Also, FWIW, yes, the Tara Reade accusation is apparently what McK brought up.
Reade made claims that deserved a hearing, but she was not a great witness. As in, her attorney dropped her as a client because she was not a great witness.
And that’s pretty much where it stands. If there’s more to it, I’m sure we’ll hear about it.
And speaking of cancel culture, since we always seem to need to, Blasey-Ford has had to move 4 times, hire private security, and leave her teaching position, since giving her testimony.
Just thought I’d mention that, since we hadn’t heard much on the cancel culture front yet today.
It’s the f’ing moral preening and carrying on like the lefties have all the right answers and anyone who doesn’t buy their/your BS is a moral leper that I find laughable.
So McK admits that he just comes here to sneer.
He must have some reason
And facts, no doubt.
It’s the f’ing moral preening and carrying on like the lefties have all the right answers and anyone who doesn’t buy their/your BS is a moral leper that I find laughable.
So McK admits that he just comes here to sneer.
He must have some reason
And facts, no doubt.
McTX’s posts always go better for me when I imagine them being team read by John Houseman as Charles W. Kingfield and Andy Griffith as Ben Matlock.
Maybe one of these guys.
And whichever one he is, I’m probably the other one.
🙂
McTX’s posts always go better for me when I imagine them being team read by John Houseman as Charles W. Kingfield and Andy Griffith as Ben Matlock.
Maybe one of these guys.
And whichever one he is, I’m probably the other one.
🙂
Blasey-Ford has had to move 4 times, hire private security, and leave her teaching position, since giving her testimony.
Yes. Lest we forget.
Blasey-Ford has had to move 4 times, hire private security, and leave her teaching position, since giving her testimony.
Yes. Lest we forget.
It’s the f’ing moral preening and carrying on like the lefties have all the right answers and anyone who doesn’t buy their/your BS is a moral leper that I find laughable.
Conservatives: non-conservatives are naive.
Libertarians: non-libertarians are uninformed.
Liberals: non-liberals are immoral.
Trump is old and stupid,…
Biden is even older. It’s going to be a MAGA election: Make Ageing Great Again.
It’s the f’ing moral preening and carrying on like the lefties have all the right answers and anyone who doesn’t buy their/your BS is a moral leper that I find laughable.
Conservatives: non-conservatives are naive.
Libertarians: non-libertarians are uninformed.
Liberals: non-liberals are immoral.
Trump is old and stupid,…
Biden is even older. It’s going to be a MAGA election: Make Ageing Great Again.
How is it moral preening to nominate and vote for a ham sandwich?
It seems to me that third party candidates and the folks who vote for them love themselves moral vanity campaigns.
Given our shitty system and the choices it vomits up, we have two choices: Evil, or Trump if you prefer, or ….. a ham sandwich.
All else is pointless moral preening in 2020.
And I’m not sure even sapient believes Hillary Clinton is a perfect specimen.
I don’t. I hate all of em.
But the woman who was accused right here of hardly being up to snuff as a small town attorney and, falsely, originally by Russian and Eastern European Trump disinformation factories, and then here, of lying about the severity of her flu attack during the 2016 campaign would have been the better hold yer nose choice in an immoral world over the monster now running amok.
How is it moral preening to nominate and vote for a ham sandwich?
It seems to me that third party candidates and the folks who vote for them love themselves moral vanity campaigns.
Given our shitty system and the choices it vomits up, we have two choices: Evil, or Trump if you prefer, or ….. a ham sandwich.
All else is pointless moral preening in 2020.
And I’m not sure even sapient believes Hillary Clinton is a perfect specimen.
I don’t. I hate all of em.
But the woman who was accused right here of hardly being up to snuff as a small town attorney and, falsely, originally by Russian and Eastern European Trump disinformation factories, and then here, of lying about the severity of her flu attack during the 2016 campaign would have been the better hold yer nose choice in an immoral world over the monster now running amok.
Trump is old and stupid,…
Biden is even older.
However, on the evidence in hand, Biden is at least firing on all cylinders. Whereas Trump has visibly lost ground over the past 4 years, and wasn’t notably coherent at the beginning.
Not to mention Biden, like pretty much everybody in Washington (except Palin, if she is there), is and always has been smarter than Trump. Just like everybody here is. It’s a damn low bar.
Trump is old and stupid,…
Biden is even older.
However, on the evidence in hand, Biden is at least firing on all cylinders. Whereas Trump has visibly lost ground over the past 4 years, and wasn’t notably coherent at the beginning.
Not to mention Biden, like pretty much everybody in Washington (except Palin, if she is there), is and always has been smarter than Trump. Just like everybody here is. It’s a damn low bar.
And I’m not sure even sapient believes Hillary Clinton is a perfect specimen.
My name was invoked? I’m here!
You are correct. I don’t believe that Hillary Clinton is a perfect specimen. I don’t believe that I am a perfect specimen. We are flawed people. Humans are flawed. Our country is flawed. France is flawed. Is this news to anyone?
Clinton spent a good part of her life trying to figure out how to make good policy to make people’s lives better. Mixed results, as with most people who do that. She and her husband got rich, but her family foundation was well thought of by folks who rate philanthropy. She’s okay with me, and I happily voted for her. I don’t look for her as my moral lodestar, but I respect her, and don’t think she should shut up.
So, yes, that’s my view of Hillary Clinton.
And I’m not sure even sapient believes Hillary Clinton is a perfect specimen.
My name was invoked? I’m here!
You are correct. I don’t believe that Hillary Clinton is a perfect specimen. I don’t believe that I am a perfect specimen. We are flawed people. Humans are flawed. Our country is flawed. France is flawed. Is this news to anyone?
Clinton spent a good part of her life trying to figure out how to make good policy to make people’s lives better. Mixed results, as with most people who do that. She and her husband got rich, but her family foundation was well thought of by folks who rate philanthropy. She’s okay with me, and I happily voted for her. I don’t look for her as my moral lodestar, but I respect her, and don’t think she should shut up.
So, yes, that’s my view of Hillary Clinton.
Let me mention flaws for a moment:
A lot of people hate Hillary Clinton because she got rich. (Through corruption? I don’t think so. She was a Yale Law graduate who worked at a prestigious Arkansas law firm, had a position on the board of Walmart (if I’m not mistaken, she was the first woman on that board), and she was a good lawyer. And she was investigated forever and ever, and nada.) So the “left” hates her because she communed with Wall Street.
Other people hate Hillary because she is a socialist. Health care!
Whatever. She’s not running for anything, but because “the Clintons” come up so often here, I just thought I’d rant. I’ll rant about Bill too, but not tonight.
Love y’all. The muppet item was great, russell.
Let me mention flaws for a moment:
A lot of people hate Hillary Clinton because she got rich. (Through corruption? I don’t think so. She was a Yale Law graduate who worked at a prestigious Arkansas law firm, had a position on the board of Walmart (if I’m not mistaken, she was the first woman on that board), and she was a good lawyer. And she was investigated forever and ever, and nada.) So the “left” hates her because she communed with Wall Street.
Other people hate Hillary because she is a socialist. Health care!
Whatever. She’s not running for anything, but because “the Clintons” come up so often here, I just thought I’d rant. I’ll rant about Bill too, but not tonight.
Love y’all. The muppet item was great, russell.
Other people hate Hillary because she is a socialist. Health care!
Should have added to this group: No bake cookies!
Other people hate Hillary because she is a socialist. Health care!
Should have added to this group: No bake cookies!
Trump is old and stupid,…
Biden is even older.
Biden, however, is not stupid. Advantage Biden.
Should have added to this group: No bake cookies!
That’s it. She’s dead to me.
Trump is old and stupid,…
Biden is even older.
Biden, however, is not stupid. Advantage Biden.
Should have added to this group: No bake cookies!
That’s it. She’s dead to me.
We had plenty of arguments here before Trump was on the radar. FSM willing, we’ll have plenty more after he’s gone – the sooner the better. I’d bet everyone would be pleased as hell if we didn’t have to waste another word on him.
We had plenty of arguments here before Trump was on the radar. FSM willing, we’ll have plenty more after he’s gone – the sooner the better. I’d bet everyone would be pleased as hell if we didn’t have to waste another word on him.
What hsh said. In fact, I don’t agree with some of what is said in this thread, but getting the narcissist out is a necessary step in itself and will also open up a bit of space to argue about other things besides the narcissist and his massive cult following.
In fact, I have a link to put up, but will do it in an old thread.
What hsh said. In fact, I don’t agree with some of what is said in this thread, but getting the narcissist out is a necessary step in itself and will also open up a bit of space to argue about other things besides the narcissist and his massive cult following.
In fact, I have a link to put up, but will do it in an old thread.
Further to McKinney’s comments about Cuomo’s supposedly ghastly handling of Covid in NYC, proving that Dems can do as badly as Trump, this article in today’s WaPo interested me:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/23/fauci-finally-loses-his-patience-with-rand-paul/
I wonder if McKinney would accept Fauci’s expertise on this subject?
Money quote:
Paul (R-Ky.), as he often has, questioned the strict mitigation measures that states across the country had undertaken. He accused Fauci of being too laudatory of New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), noting that Cuomo’s state experienced one of the worst outbreaks in the world.
“How can we possibly be jumping up and saying, ‘Oh, Governor Cuomo did a great job’?” Paul asked. “He had one of the worst death rates in the world.”
That outbreak, of course, was seeded very early on, before much of the more serious mitigation efforts began. Cuomo has been criticized for the state’s policy on nursing homes, especially, and Fauci acknowledged that the state made “mistakes.” But Fauci noted that the state now has one of the lowest test-positivity rates in the country, saying it’s because it has embraced health officials’ guidance.
“No, you misconstrued that, senator, and you’ve done that repetitively in the past,” Fauci shot back. “They got hit very badly. They’ve made some mistakes. Right now — if you look at what’s going on right now, the things that are going on in New York to get their test-positivity 1 percent or less is because they are looking at the guidelines that we have put together from the task force of the four or five things: of masks, social distancing, outdoors more than indoors, avoiding crowds and washing hands—”
Paul interrupted, positing that New York is actually in much better shape right now because it has attained some form of herd immunity.
Fauci was again unimpressed.
“I challenge that,” he said. He asked for more time to respond, “because this happens with Senator Rand all the time.”
“You are not listening to what the director of the CDC [Robert Redfield] said,” Fauci added, “that in New York, it’s about 22 percent [that have tested positive]. If you believe 22 percent is herd immunity, I believe you’re alone in that.”
Further to McKinney’s comments about Cuomo’s supposedly ghastly handling of Covid in NYC, proving that Dems can do as badly as Trump, this article in today’s WaPo interested me:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/23/fauci-finally-loses-his-patience-with-rand-paul/
I wonder if McKinney would accept Fauci’s expertise on this subject?
Money quote:
Paul (R-Ky.), as he often has, questioned the strict mitigation measures that states across the country had undertaken. He accused Fauci of being too laudatory of New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), noting that Cuomo’s state experienced one of the worst outbreaks in the world.
“How can we possibly be jumping up and saying, ‘Oh, Governor Cuomo did a great job’?” Paul asked. “He had one of the worst death rates in the world.”
That outbreak, of course, was seeded very early on, before much of the more serious mitigation efforts began. Cuomo has been criticized for the state’s policy on nursing homes, especially, and Fauci acknowledged that the state made “mistakes.” But Fauci noted that the state now has one of the lowest test-positivity rates in the country, saying it’s because it has embraced health officials’ guidance.
“No, you misconstrued that, senator, and you’ve done that repetitively in the past,” Fauci shot back. “They got hit very badly. They’ve made some mistakes. Right now — if you look at what’s going on right now, the things that are going on in New York to get their test-positivity 1 percent or less is because they are looking at the guidelines that we have put together from the task force of the four or five things: of masks, social distancing, outdoors more than indoors, avoiding crowds and washing hands—”
Paul interrupted, positing that New York is actually in much better shape right now because it has attained some form of herd immunity.
Fauci was again unimpressed.
“I challenge that,” he said. He asked for more time to respond, “because this happens with Senator Rand all the time.”
“You are not listening to what the director of the CDC [Robert Redfield] said,” Fauci added, “that in New York, it’s about 22 percent [that have tested positive]. If you believe 22 percent is herd immunity, I believe you’re alone in that.”
If Cuomo were a Republican, I’m guessing that McKinney’s position would align more closely with Fauci’s. But he’s not partisan like the rest of us hypocrites here on this blog who don’t get to ride high on a horse named “Both Sides.”
If Cuomo were a Republican, I’m guessing that McKinney’s position would align more closely with Fauci’s. But he’s not partisan like the rest of us hypocrites here on this blog who don’t get to ride high on a horse named “Both Sides.”
I’m guessing you’re right, hsh. Still, it would be nice to hear about this from McKinney, bearing in mind lj’s recent comments.
I’m guessing you’re right, hsh. Still, it would be nice to hear about this from McKinney, bearing in mind lj’s recent comments.
I’m guessing you’re right, hsh. Still, it would be nice to hear about this from McKinney, bearing in mind lj’s recent comments.
I’m guessing you’re right, hsh. Still, it would be nice to hear about this from McKinney, bearing in mind lj’s recent comments.