Donald Trump

dignin

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Abe Froman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Please... calling it a failure because it's under stress is total hyperbole.  It's the longest running Constitution.  That's hardly a failure.  

no it's not hyperbole at all. it just hasn't been tested all these years. now it is, and it is showing GLARING problems with accountability. trump is showing single handedly that any one man who has power can fucking do whatever he wants. especially if he holds both chambers. and scotus. jesus, it's frightening how easy it seems to corrupt the longest running constitution. 

This is a great post, Hugh.  To me this is the problem.  Trump is doing and saying (so many lies) whatever he wants and not only is he not being held accountable but he many times is doubling down on his lies and then blaming/accusing others.

I hear you both on this, but let's not forget the final check and balance.  The election.  I don't believe it is fair to say that the system is inadequate yet.  I think the system is working as it's laid out...sure there are some oddities.  And sure, it's likely trump is impeached but not convicted.  But this becomes the #1 election issue.  And we will see what the will of the people is and what they are willing to put up with.  

The reality is with all this stuff you are seeing, the single biggest risk to the system and the single biggest reason we get what we get is because people DO NOT VOTE.  If everyone went to vote, we'd be in a much different position then we are today.  Pandering to the extremes wouldn't be happening on the same scale.

If they’re not voting they probably don’t believe government is the solution. But I am concerned the democrats base response to trump was for extremist policies.

Extremist? 

You mean like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., etc., etc.

The horror!

I'll ignore all of the talking points we've been spoonfed over the years about demographics, land mass, etc. They aren't reasons; they are excuses.

Shit hole countries.

Halifax2TheMax

For those still wondering why the black voter turnout wasn’t as strong in 2016 as it was for Obama. And yea, social media couldn’t possibly influence an election.

https://apple.news/Ah2hfpDwWTWOIEmMDs4OQgQ

cincybearcat

Halifax2TheMax said:

For those still wondering why the black voter turnout wasn’t as strong in 2016 as it was for Obama. And yea, social media couldn’t possibly influence an election.

https://apple.news/Ah2hfpDwWTWOIEmMDs4OQgQ

Oh I know what they were doing.  I am surprised that people fall for that crap.  It's sad really.  

josevolution

https://apple.news/ABM26PsMwQV6LHBPFhNpPEg
I’m sure he threatened his king to make sure it doesn’t happen again ..

Lerxst1992

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Abe Froman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Please... calling it a failure because it's under stress is total hyperbole.  It's the longest running Constitution.  That's hardly a failure.  

no it's not hyperbole at all. it just hasn't been tested all these years. now it is, and it is showing GLARING problems with accountability. trump is showing single handedly that any one man who has power can fucking do whatever he wants. especially if he holds both chambers. and scotus. jesus, it's frightening how easy it seems to corrupt the longest running constitution. 

This is a great post, Hugh.  To me this is the problem.  Trump is doing and saying (so many lies) whatever he wants and not only is he not being held accountable but he many times is doubling down on his lies and then blaming/accusing others.

I hear you both on this, but let's not forget the final check and balance.  The election.  I don't believe it is fair to say that the system is inadequate yet.  I think the system is working as it's laid out...sure there are some oddities.  And sure, it's likely trump is impeached but not convicted.  But this becomes the #1 election issue.  And we will see what the will of the people is and what they are willing to put up with.  

The reality is with all this stuff you are seeing, the single biggest risk to the system and the single biggest reason we get what we get is because people DO NOT VOTE.  If everyone went to vote, we'd be in a much different position then we are today.  Pandering to the extremes wouldn't be happening on the same scale.

If they’re not voting they probably don’t believe government is the solution. But I am concerned the democrats base response to trump was for extremist policies.

Extremist? 

You mean like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., etc., etc.

The horror!

I'll ignore all of the talking points we've been spoonfed over the years about demographics, land mass, etc. They aren't reasons; they are excuses.

How many electoral votes are there in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden?

Let me know if that gets us to 270. We can then have a giant AMT party celebrating Trumps defeat. Thanks!

dankind

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Abe Froman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Please... calling it a failure because it's under stress is total hyperbole.  It's the longest running Constitution.  That's hardly a failure.  

no it's not hyperbole at all. it just hasn't been tested all these years. now it is, and it is showing GLARING problems with accountability. trump is showing single handedly that any one man who has power can fucking do whatever he wants. especially if he holds both chambers. and scotus. jesus, it's frightening how easy it seems to corrupt the longest running constitution. 

This is a great post, Hugh.  To me this is the problem.  Trump is doing and saying (so many lies) whatever he wants and not only is he not being held accountable but he many times is doubling down on his lies and then blaming/accusing others.

I hear you both on this, but let's not forget the final check and balance.  The election.  I don't believe it is fair to say that the system is inadequate yet.  I think the system is working as it's laid out...sure there are some oddities.  And sure, it's likely trump is impeached but not convicted.  But this becomes the #1 election issue.  And we will see what the will of the people is and what they are willing to put up with.  

The reality is with all this stuff you are seeing, the single biggest risk to the system and the single biggest reason we get what we get is because people DO NOT VOTE.  If everyone went to vote, we'd be in a much different position then we are today.  Pandering to the extremes wouldn't be happening on the same scale.

If they’re not voting they probably don’t believe government is the solution. But I am concerned the democrats base response to trump was for extremist policies.

Extremist? 

You mean like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., etc., etc.

The horror!

I'll ignore all of the talking points we've been spoonfed over the years about demographics, land mass, etc. They aren't reasons; they are excuses.

How many electoral votes are there in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden?

Let me know if that gets us to 270. We can then have a giant AMT party celebrating Trumps defeat. Thanks!

Considering that we’re the only developed country to exploit an electoral college system in the selection of its figurehead, perhaps, on a global scale, that could be considered extremist.

But what you dub extremist is basically just candidates who believe that their country needs to at least attempt to catch up with the rest of the free world when it comes to taking care of its own citizens.

One could argue that only an extremist would view such policies as extremist. 

I mean, as far as I know, historically, the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence because they want access to better education and healthcare is zero—granted, I might be missing a handful—but the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence to block access to education and healthcare is, well, kind of extreme. 

I won’t waste anymore my of time or mindshare here. But one could go on and make that argument. 

benjs

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Abe Froman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Please... calling it a failure because it's under stress is total hyperbole.  It's the longest running Constitution.  That's hardly a failure.  

no it's not hyperbole at all. it just hasn't been tested all these years. now it is, and it is showing GLARING problems with accountability. trump is showing single handedly that any one man who has power can fucking do whatever he wants. especially if he holds both chambers. and scotus. jesus, it's frightening how easy it seems to corrupt the longest running constitution. 

This is a great post, Hugh.  To me this is the problem.  Trump is doing and saying (so many lies) whatever he wants and not only is he not being held accountable but he many times is doubling down on his lies and then blaming/accusing others.

I hear you both on this, but let's not forget the final check and balance.  The election.  I don't believe it is fair to say that the system is inadequate yet.  I think the system is working as it's laid out...sure there are some oddities.  And sure, it's likely trump is impeached but not convicted.  But this becomes the #1 election issue.  And we will see what the will of the people is and what they are willing to put up with.  

The reality is with all this stuff you are seeing, the single biggest risk to the system and the single biggest reason we get what we get is because people DO NOT VOTE.  If everyone went to vote, we'd be in a much different position then we are today.  Pandering to the extremes wouldn't be happening on the same scale.

If they’re not voting they probably don’t believe government is the solution. But I am concerned the democrats base response to trump was for extremist policies.

Extremist? 

You mean like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., etc., etc.

The horror!

I'll ignore all of the talking points we've been spoonfed over the years about demographics, land mass, etc. They aren't reasons; they are excuses.

How many electoral votes are there in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden?

Let me know if that gets us to 270. We can then have a giant AMT party celebrating Trumps defeat. Thanks!

Considering that we’re the only developed country to exploit an electoral college system in the selection of its figurehead, perhaps, on a global scale, that could be considered extremist.

But what you dub extremist is basically just candidates who believe that their country needs to at least attempt to catch up with the rest of the free world when it comes to taking care of its own citizens.

One could argue that only an extremist would view such policies as extremist. 

I mean, as far as I know, historically, the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence because they want access to better education and healthcare is zero—granted, I might be missing a handful—but the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence to block access to education and healthcare is, well, kind of extreme. 

I won’t waste anymore my of time or mindshare here. But one could go on and make that argument. 

It's all about where you're looking from. Inside the US today, many of the notions being discussed are extreme and radical because what's being experienced today doesn't look/feel anything like them. From outside the US (at least from a Canadian's perspective), the US itself looks extreme already, and the positional shifts being discussed would make the US look less extreme, but only because it would be a shift closer to the Canadian mentality. 

Anyways, in terms of the Electoral College system, I'm still a believer in proportionally dividing the EC seats won within a State. If 40% of voters in California vote X and 60% vote Y, they should each get the appropriate percentages of the number of EC seats allocated to California. This would preserve the best value of the EC system - which is that there's a floor and a ceiling on each State's voting rights to minimize the disproportionality from varying population sizes to prevent a state wielding too little/too much voting power - while still pivoting to a truly more representative model of running an election.

mrussel1

benjs said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Abe Froman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Please... calling it a failure because it's under stress is total hyperbole.  It's the longest running Constitution.  That's hardly a failure.  

no it's not hyperbole at all. it just hasn't been tested all these years. now it is, and it is showing GLARING problems with accountability. trump is showing single handedly that any one man who has power can fucking do whatever he wants. especially if he holds both chambers. and scotus. jesus, it's frightening how easy it seems to corrupt the longest running constitution. 

This is a great post, Hugh.  To me this is the problem.  Trump is doing and saying (so many lies) whatever he wants and not only is he not being held accountable but he many times is doubling down on his lies and then blaming/accusing others.

I hear you both on this, but let's not forget the final check and balance.  The election.  I don't believe it is fair to say that the system is inadequate yet.  I think the system is working as it's laid out...sure there are some oddities.  And sure, it's likely trump is impeached but not convicted.  But this becomes the #1 election issue.  And we will see what the will of the people is and what they are willing to put up with.  

The reality is with all this stuff you are seeing, the single biggest risk to the system and the single biggest reason we get what we get is because people DO NOT VOTE.  If everyone went to vote, we'd be in a much different position then we are today.  Pandering to the extremes wouldn't be happening on the same scale.

If they’re not voting they probably don’t believe government is the solution. But I am concerned the democrats base response to trump was for extremist policies.

Extremist? 

You mean like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., etc., etc.

The horror!

I'll ignore all of the talking points we've been spoonfed over the years about demographics, land mass, etc. They aren't reasons; they are excuses.

How many electoral votes are there in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden?

Let me know if that gets us to 270. We can then have a giant AMT party celebrating Trumps defeat. Thanks!

Considering that we’re the only developed country to exploit an electoral college system in the selection of its figurehead, perhaps, on a global scale, that could be considered extremist.

But what you dub extremist is basically just candidates who believe that their country needs to at least attempt to catch up with the rest of the free world when it comes to taking care of its own citizens.

One could argue that only an extremist would view such policies as extremist. 

I mean, as far as I know, historically, the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence because they want access to better education and healthcare is zero—granted, I might be missing a handful—but the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence to block access to education and healthcare is, well, kind of extreme. 

I won’t waste anymore my of time or mindshare here. But one could go on and make that argument. 

It's all about where you're looking from. Inside the US today, many of the notions being discussed are extreme and radical because what's being experienced today doesn't look/feel anything like them. From outside the US (at least from a Canadian's perspective), the US itself looks extreme already, and the positional shifts being discussed would make the US look less extreme, but only because it would be a shift closer to the Canadian mentality. 

Anyways, in terms of the Electoral College system, I'm still a believer in proportionally dividing the EC seats won within a State. If 40% of voters in California vote X and 60% vote Y, they should each get the appropriate percentages of the number of EC seats allocated to California. This would preserve the best value of the EC system - which is that there's a floor and a ceiling on each State's voting rights to minimize the disproportionality from varying population sizes to prevent a state wielding too little/too much voting power - while still pivoting to a truly more representative model of running an election.

That's the case in Maine today, and I believe Nebraska. The electoral votes are able to split by % of vote.  

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Abe Froman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Please... calling it a failure because it's under stress is total hyperbole.  It's the longest running Constitution.  That's hardly a failure.  

no it's not hyperbole at all. it just hasn't been tested all these years. now it is, and it is showing GLARING problems with accountability. trump is showing single handedly that any one man who has power can fucking do whatever he wants. especially if he holds both chambers. and scotus. jesus, it's frightening how easy it seems to corrupt the longest running constitution. 

This is a great post, Hugh.  To me this is the problem.  Trump is doing and saying (so many lies) whatever he wants and not only is he not being held accountable but he many times is doubling down on his lies and then blaming/accusing others.

I hear you both on this, but let's not forget the final check and balance.  The election.  I don't believe it is fair to say that the system is inadequate yet.  I think the system is working as it's laid out...sure there are some oddities.  And sure, it's likely trump is impeached but not convicted.  But this becomes the #1 election issue.  And we will see what the will of the people is and what they are willing to put up with.  

The reality is with all this stuff you are seeing, the single biggest risk to the system and the single biggest reason we get what we get is because people DO NOT VOTE.  If everyone went to vote, we'd be in a much different position then we are today.  Pandering to the extremes wouldn't be happening on the same scale.

If they’re not voting they probably don’t believe government is the solution. But I am concerned the democrats base response to trump was for extremist policies.

Extremist? 

You mean like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., etc., etc.

The horror!

I'll ignore all of the talking points we've been spoonfed over the years about demographics, land mass, etc. They aren't reasons; they are excuses.

How many electoral votes are there in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden?

Let me know if that gets us to 270. We can then have a giant AMT party celebrating Trumps defeat. Thanks!

Considering that we’re the only developed country to exploit an electoral college system in the selection of its figurehead, perhaps, on a global scale, that could be considered extremist.

But what you dub extremist is basically just candidates who believe that their country needs to at least attempt to catch up with the rest of the free world when it comes to taking care of its own citizens.

One could argue that only an extremist would view such policies as extremist. 

I mean, as far as I know, historically, the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence because they want access to better education and healthcare is zero—granted, I might be missing a handful—but the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence to block access to education and healthcare is, well, kind of extreme. 

I won’t waste anymore my of time or mindshare here. But one could go on and make that argument. 

It's all about where you're looking from. Inside the US today, many of the notions being discussed are extreme and radical because what's being experienced today doesn't look/feel anything like them. From outside the US (at least from a Canadian's perspective), the US itself looks extreme already, and the positional shifts being discussed would make the US look less extreme, but only because it would be a shift closer to the Canadian mentality. 

Anyways, in terms of the Electoral College system, I'm still a believer in proportionally dividing the EC seats won within a State. If 40% of voters in California vote X and 60% vote Y, they should each get the appropriate percentages of the number of EC seats allocated to California. This would preserve the best value of the EC system - which is that there's a floor and a ceiling on each State's voting rights to minimize the disproportionality from varying population sizes to prevent a state wielding too little/too much voting power - while still pivoting to a truly more representative model of running an election.

That's the case in Maine today, and I believe Nebraska. The electoral votes are able to split by % of vote.  

I don’t think it’s percent of vote...I think it’s by congressional district, with the two Senate votes going to the state overall winner.  If larger states did that, we would see more splits.  Without doing any research or math, my reaction is that every state doing so would be an even bigger GOP advantage.  438 votes would be fairly representative.  The other 100 would look like the Senate.

Imagine if only California did this (or only Texas)...

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Abe Froman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Please... calling it a failure because it's under stress is total hyperbole.  It's the longest running Constitution.  That's hardly a failure.  

no it's not hyperbole at all. it just hasn't been tested all these years. now it is, and it is showing GLARING problems with accountability. trump is showing single handedly that any one man who has power can fucking do whatever he wants. especially if he holds both chambers. and scotus. jesus, it's frightening how easy it seems to corrupt the longest running constitution. 

This is a great post, Hugh.  To me this is the problem.  Trump is doing and saying (so many lies) whatever he wants and not only is he not being held accountable but he many times is doubling down on his lies and then blaming/accusing others.

I hear you both on this, but let's not forget the final check and balance.  The election.  I don't believe it is fair to say that the system is inadequate yet.  I think the system is working as it's laid out...sure there are some oddities.  And sure, it's likely trump is impeached but not convicted.  But this becomes the #1 election issue.  And we will see what the will of the people is and what they are willing to put up with.  

The reality is with all this stuff you are seeing, the single biggest risk to the system and the single biggest reason we get what we get is because people DO NOT VOTE.  If everyone went to vote, we'd be in a much different position then we are today.  Pandering to the extremes wouldn't be happening on the same scale.

If they’re not voting they probably don’t believe government is the solution. But I am concerned the democrats base response to trump was for extremist policies.

Extremist? 

You mean like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., etc., etc.

The horror!

I'll ignore all of the talking points we've been spoonfed over the years about demographics, land mass, etc. They aren't reasons; they are excuses.

How many electoral votes are there in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden?

Let me know if that gets us to 270. We can then have a giant AMT party celebrating Trumps defeat. Thanks!

Considering that we’re the only developed country to exploit an electoral college system in the selection of its figurehead, perhaps, on a global scale, that could be considered extremist.

But what you dub extremist is basically just candidates who believe that their country needs to at least attempt to catch up with the rest of the free world when it comes to taking care of its own citizens.

One could argue that only an extremist would view such policies as extremist. 

I mean, as far as I know, historically, the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence because they want access to better education and healthcare is zero—granted, I might be missing a handful—but the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence to block access to education and healthcare is, well, kind of extreme. 

I won’t waste anymore my of time or mindshare here. But one could go on and make that argument. 

It's all about where you're looking from. Inside the US today, many of the notions being discussed are extreme and radical because what's being experienced today doesn't look/feel anything like them. From outside the US (at least from a Canadian's perspective), the US itself looks extreme already, and the positional shifts being discussed would make the US look less extreme, but only because it would be a shift closer to the Canadian mentality. 

Anyways, in terms of the Electoral College system, I'm still a believer in proportionally dividing the EC seats won within a State. If 40% of voters in California vote X and 60% vote Y, they should each get the appropriate percentages of the number of EC seats allocated to California. This would preserve the best value of the EC system - which is that there's a floor and a ceiling on each State's voting rights to minimize the disproportionality from varying population sizes to prevent a state wielding too little/too much voting power - while still pivoting to a truly more representative model of running an election.

That's the case in Maine today, and I believe Nebraska. The electoral votes are able to split by % of vote.  

I don’t think it’s percent of vote...I think it’s by congressional district, with the two Senate votes going to the state overall winner.  If larger states did that, we would see more splits.  Without doing any research or math, my reaction is that every state doing so would be an even bigger GOP advantage.  438 votes would be fairly representative.  The other 100 would look like the Senate.

Imagine if only California did this (or only Texas)...

Yes you're right, congressional districts.  One would think it would be net positive for Dems becuse they would gain the urban votes in cities where they receive zero today (like TX) even if that means giving up the rural votes in blue states.  I guess you could argue it would mimic the House.  

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Abe Froman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Please... calling it a failure because it's under stress is total hyperbole.  It's the longest running Constitution.  That's hardly a failure.  

no it's not hyperbole at all. it just hasn't been tested all these years. now it is, and it is showing GLARING problems with accountability. trump is showing single handedly that any one man who has power can fucking do whatever he wants. especially if he holds both chambers. and scotus. jesus, it's frightening how easy it seems to corrupt the longest running constitution. 

This is a great post, Hugh.  To me this is the problem.  Trump is doing and saying (so many lies) whatever he wants and not only is he not being held accountable but he many times is doubling down on his lies and then blaming/accusing others.

I hear you both on this, but let's not forget the final check and balance.  The election.  I don't believe it is fair to say that the system is inadequate yet.  I think the system is working as it's laid out...sure there are some oddities.  And sure, it's likely trump is impeached but not convicted.  But this becomes the #1 election issue.  And we will see what the will of the people is and what they are willing to put up with.  

The reality is with all this stuff you are seeing, the single biggest risk to the system and the single biggest reason we get what we get is because people DO NOT VOTE.  If everyone went to vote, we'd be in a much different position then we are today.  Pandering to the extremes wouldn't be happening on the same scale.

If they’re not voting they probably don’t believe government is the solution. But I am concerned the democrats base response to trump was for extremist policies.

Extremist? 

You mean like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., etc., etc.

The horror!

I'll ignore all of the talking points we've been spoonfed over the years about demographics, land mass, etc. They aren't reasons; they are excuses.

How many electoral votes are there in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden?

Let me know if that gets us to 270. We can then have a giant AMT party celebrating Trumps defeat. Thanks!

Considering that we’re the only developed country to exploit an electoral college system in the selection of its figurehead, perhaps, on a global scale, that could be considered extremist.

But what you dub extremist is basically just candidates who believe that their country needs to at least attempt to catch up with the rest of the free world when it comes to taking care of its own citizens.

One could argue that only an extremist would view such policies as extremist. 

I mean, as far as I know, historically, the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence because they want access to better education and healthcare is zero—granted, I might be missing a handful—but the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence to block access to education and healthcare is, well, kind of extreme. 

I won’t waste anymore my of time or mindshare here. But one could go on and make that argument. 

It's all about where you're looking from. Inside the US today, many of the notions being discussed are extreme and radical because what's being experienced today doesn't look/feel anything like them. From outside the US (at least from a Canadian's perspective), the US itself looks extreme already, and the positional shifts being discussed would make the US look less extreme, but only because it would be a shift closer to the Canadian mentality. 

Anyways, in terms of the Electoral College system, I'm still a believer in proportionally dividing the EC seats won within a State. If 40% of voters in California vote X and 60% vote Y, they should each get the appropriate percentages of the number of EC seats allocated to California. This would preserve the best value of the EC system - which is that there's a floor and a ceiling on each State's voting rights to minimize the disproportionality from varying population sizes to prevent a state wielding too little/too much voting power - while still pivoting to a truly more representative model of running an election.

That's the case in Maine today, and I believe Nebraska. The electoral votes are able to split by % of vote.  

I don’t think it’s percent of vote...I think it’s by congressional district, with the two Senate votes going to the state overall winner.  If larger states did that, we would see more splits.  Without doing any research or math, my reaction is that every state doing so would be an even bigger GOP advantage.  438 votes would be fairly representative.  The other 100 would look like the Senate.

Imagine if only California did this (or only Texas)...

Yes you're right, congressional districts.  One would think it would be net positive for Dems becuse they would gain the urban votes in cities where they receive zero today (like TX) even if that means giving up the rural votes in blue states.  I guess you could argue it would mimic the House.  

Imagine the effort being put into gerrymandering...

dankind

benjs said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Abe Froman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Please... calling it a failure because it's under stress is total hyperbole.  It's the longest running Constitution.  That's hardly a failure.  

no it's not hyperbole at all. it just hasn't been tested all these years. now it is, and it is showing GLARING problems with accountability. trump is showing single handedly that any one man who has power can fucking do whatever he wants. especially if he holds both chambers. and scotus. jesus, it's frightening how easy it seems to corrupt the longest running constitution. 

This is a great post, Hugh.  To me this is the problem.  Trump is doing and saying (so many lies) whatever he wants and not only is he not being held accountable but he many times is doubling down on his lies and then blaming/accusing others.

I hear you both on this, but let's not forget the final check and balance.  The election.  I don't believe it is fair to say that the system is inadequate yet.  I think the system is working as it's laid out...sure there are some oddities.  And sure, it's likely trump is impeached but not convicted.  But this becomes the #1 election issue.  And we will see what the will of the people is and what they are willing to put up with.  

The reality is with all this stuff you are seeing, the single biggest risk to the system and the single biggest reason we get what we get is because people DO NOT VOTE.  If everyone went to vote, we'd be in a much different position then we are today.  Pandering to the extremes wouldn't be happening on the same scale.

If they’re not voting they probably don’t believe government is the solution. But I am concerned the democrats base response to trump was for extremist policies.

Extremist? 

You mean like Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., etc., etc.

The horror!

I'll ignore all of the talking points we've been spoonfed over the years about demographics, land mass, etc. They aren't reasons; they are excuses.

How many electoral votes are there in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden?

Let me know if that gets us to 270. We can then have a giant AMT party celebrating Trumps defeat. Thanks!

Considering that we’re the only developed country to exploit an electoral college system in the selection of its figurehead, perhaps, on a global scale, that could be considered extremist.

But what you dub extremist is basically just candidates who believe that their country needs to at least attempt to catch up with the rest of the free world when it comes to taking care of its own citizens.

One could argue that only an extremist would view such policies as extremist. 

I mean, as far as I know, historically, the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence because they want access to better education and healthcare is zero—granted, I might be missing a handful—but the number of people in the US who have resorted to violence to block access to education and healthcare is, well, kind of extreme. 

I won’t waste anymore my of time or mindshare here. But one could go on and make that argument. 

It's all about where you're looking from. Inside the US today, many of the notions being discussed are extreme and radical because what's being experienced today doesn't look/feel anything like them. From outside the US (at least from a Canadian's perspective), the US itself looks extreme already, and the positional shifts being discussed would make the US look less extreme, but only because it would be a shift closer to the Canadian mentality. 

Anyways, in terms of the Electoral College system, I'm still a believer in proportionally dividing the EC seats won within a State. If 40% of voters in California vote X and 60% vote Y, they should each get the appropriate percentages of the number of EC seats allocated to California. This would preserve the best value of the EC system - which is that there's a floor and a ceiling on each State's voting rights to minimize the disproportionality from varying population sizes to prevent a state wielding too little/too much voting power - while still pivoting to a truly more representative model of running an election.

I’m a U.S. citizen (by birth, not choice). I’ve lived in the U.S. my entire life—and in many different states, at that (East Coast, West Coast, Deep South, straight up the middle). So I’m looking from the inside (all over the inside), and it still is, and always has been, fucked. If the average U.S. citizen’s focus were more global and less isolationist, our glaring shortcomings would become all too clear. But fat fucking chance of that ever happening.

A return to normalcy, as many in the States want, is unacceptable to me. Our status quo of pushing on a string or, worse, taking two steps backward for every step forward should have our citizens responding in a similar vein to Chile’s or Hong Kong’s brave citizens, but, again, fat fucking chance of that ever happening. 

Bentleyspop

Wasn't  sure which thread to put this in.
This thread
The abortion thread 
Or the idiots thread

https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1203435271611650048?s=19

mrussel1

Bentleyspop said:

Wasn't  sure which thread to put this in.
This thread
The abortion thread 
Or the idiots thread

https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1203435271611650048?s=19

We do need to stop babies from being born at nine months.  It's a travesty. 

Bentleyspop

And another I'm  not sure where it goes....

This thread
Idiot thread
ted cruz thread

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1203703049987997699?s=19

dignin

mickeyrat

You're kidding. America's Mayor is a money grubbing douchebag?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-giulianis-dual-roles-power-broker-for-hire-and-shadow-foreign-policy-adviser/2019/12/08/f9ab9c4c-1773-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html

ikiT

YO...this is a travesty.  At 11pm ET last night FOX NEWS showed Fox Nation All American Christmas at Fox Square

The promo had a snip of Ainsley's Bible Study where Ainsley spoke to the importance of prayer and "Christ" with Sean effking Hannity in a two chair interview.  HILARIOUS.

They make those idiots pay for that shit.  Use the code CELEBRATE at checkout.

ikiT

Ted Cruz likes power.

Bentleyspop

ikiT said:

YO...this is a travesty.  At 11pm ET last night FOX NEWS showed Fox Nation All American Christmas at Fox Square

The promo had a snip of Ainsley's Bible Study where Ainsley spoke to the importance of prayer and "Christ" with Sean effking Hannity in a two chair interview.  HILARIOUS.

They make those idiots pay for that shit.  Use the code CELEBRATE at checkout.

These so-called "patriotic americans" don't  give 2 shits about the constitution when it comes to separation of church and state.