|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2016 13:47 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 11:53 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 11:50 ChristianS wrote:On December 06 2016 11:30 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 11:07 ChristianS wrote:On December 06 2016 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 10:32 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling... Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution. The way you describe it would be petty; and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion. Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances. So you admit that you don't even really know what Romney did, but you nevertheless feel quite comfortable in making judgments regarding my characterization of what Romney did and my feeling that Trump is justified in his retribution (presuming that he's even doing it). Damn, you're on a roll today. Zlefin doesn't need to have read Mitt Romney's biography to realize your perspective has been consistently vindictive, with a heaping helping of schadenfreude. If you disagree with that characterization I can go try to find quotes on which I'm basing that assessment, but I suspect that won't be necessary. I don't really disagree with any of this, and I've been quite open on these points previously. I'm a very firm believer in the value of retribution. And I firmly believe that what Romney did is worthy of the humiliation that he currently is receiving. Likewise, when someone unnecessarily -- and without provocation -- attacks me personally twice in a day with shitposts that are patently absurd, I'm going to respond. You've been pretty clear about how much you're enjoying everyone's panic and disillusionment in American democracy. I'd phrase this differently. I'm enjoying the baseless hysteria and temper tantrums that are running rampant through some elements of the left (and, in more limited cases, the right) right now. If you don't disagree with being described as "vindictive with a heaping helping of schadenfreude" why do you care if zlefin criticizes you for that? He seems to think (as do I) that it's inappropriate to wish harm on another human being because you disagree with them politically, and that taking joy in another's pain is a troubling attitude that should be discouraged in all but the most extreme circumstances. It appears you disagree with that opinion, but why the bad blood? He's criticizing you for something you freely admit to but don't think is bad. Again, feel free to correct me if I've mischaracterized you somewhere because it seems to me you've been pretty clear. There's a very big difference between pettiness and true retribution. Are you counting your vindictiveness as the latter? Because I'm pretty sure I remember you writing something along the lines of "I admit that my position is petty." This is too bad, because I thought you had accepted and owned up to your pleasure at the suffering of both liberals and establishment conservatives throughout the country being largely petty and vindictive, and I could kind of respect the self-awareness of that, at least. Am I to understand you think this is justified as some righteous retribution on those people?
You're making this far harder than it needs to be. Trump's [supposed] maltreatment of Romney is retributive. My response to zlefin's shitpost is retributive. Everything else that you're bringing up and flinging at the wall is not on topic.
|
On December 06 2016 10:58 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 10:11 Logo wrote:On December 06 2016 08:55 TanGeng wrote:
Do banks still want 20%??? But even 20% seems doable. I don't know maybe 14k just doesn't seem like all that much to me. Where I am you need all cash to be competitive because of investors unless you want to offer like 10-30k over asking, but that varies by even small geographical differences. Likewise a mortgage would be about the same price or less than rent, I don't know if that's true everywhere, but it makes it quite attractive to buy. How does a renter based economy play into things like wealth concentration? Like it seems pretty bad if you have a middle class all renting and an upper class that gets to own + own rental property + pass all that on to kids. In principle it shouldn't play into wealth concentration because there are other ways to hold wealth. In practice, though, if there are government programs and subsidies to encourage home ownership (which would explain buying being better than renting), then that does affect wealth concentration because it's essentially a subsidy to low and medium income families to save. To be fair, I don't think I've ever read a rigorous study on the effect of home ownership programs on the saving rate, but it sounds plausible at first glance.
Off course renter based economy plays into wealth concentration. Debt based economy like credit cards/mortgages as well. The money (the rent/interest) is flowing from the lower/middle class to the upper/investor class.
Owner ship does accumulate wealth (well It more holds wealth as you wont make more then the inflation) but if you use a mortgage to buy then you are still paying of someone else ,which can be profitable btw if the price of the house rises more then the interest you pay. Accumulating with a mortgage on the property and slowly paying it off is basicly the same as safing,which off course does accumulate wealth. Mortgages where you only pay the rent and don't pay off (not sure if they exist in the usa) is the same as renting from the bank.
|
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.
Fifteen years ago, as a firefighter, I was part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks against our nation. That attack and this year’s election may seem unrelated, but for me the relationship becomes clearer every day.
George W. Bush is an imperfect man, but he led us through the tragic days following the attacks. His leadership showed that America was a great nation. That was also the last time I remember the nation united. I watch Mr. Trump fail to unite America and drive a wedge between us.
Mr. Trump goes out of his way to attack the cast of “Saturday Night Live” for bias. He tweets day and night, but waited two days to offer sympathy to the Ohio State community after an attack there. He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage.
This is unacceptable. For me, America is that shining city on a hill that Ronald Reagan envisioned. It has problems. It has challenges. These can be met and overcome just as our nation overcame Sept. 11.
The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html
I really wasn't expecting the Hamilton Elector push to actually gain any traction with republicans but this is nice to see. I doubt there's any credible threat of getting below 270 for Trump (though that would be interesting), but anything that can put Trump's ego into check would be a big win and send a good message about how carefully he needs to govern.
I'm curious if there will be a smear effort against the elector considering he's a republican first responder.
Mortgages where you only pay the rent and don't pay off (not sure if they exist in the usa) is the same as renting from the bank.
Those exist but aren't really used by most people.
|
There is no way trump wont get 270 votes I think. He has not messed up as president elect so far so I doubt the population who voted for him would accept that. It would be a huge constitutional crisis,much worse then 4 years of trump.
|
On December 06 2016 14:18 pmh wrote:
There is no way trump wont get 270 votes lol. He has not messed up as president elect so far so I doubt the population who voted for him would accept that. It would be a huge constitutional crisis,much worse then 4 years of trump. No that does not seem likely at all.
Yeah, but like I said it's not so much about dropping him below 270 as it is making a message of it. Also maybe we can get some interesting stuff around the electoral college. I don't like it, but if we have it then it should have the autonomy to function in a reasonable manner (electors work as a safety valve).
|
If Trump doesn't get 270 and the election from the EC the supreme court will give him the presidency and abolish the EC before inauguration day. Its a non issue people are flapping their wings for pointlessly.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Any result that doesn't end in Trump becoming president will in all likelihood be worse than a Trump presidency.
|
if there are enough faithless electors to prevent trump from getting to 270, its because he's done something bad enough that like 60% of people would be pushing for an insta-impeach, though a republican congress would probably be reluctant to. but that's a purely hypothetical situation.
|
I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but given that state law mandates how the electors vote, what is to stop Trump from getting an injunction to force the vote in his favor?
|
On December 06 2016 15:09 xDaunt wrote:
I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but given that state law mandates how the electors vote, what is to stop Trump from getting an injunction to force the vote in his favor?
Texas state law doesn't, does it?
|
On December 06 2016 15:09 xDaunt wrote:
I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but given that state law mandates how the electors vote, what is to stop Trump from getting an injunction to force the vote in his favor?
Not all states require it. I believe 13 let you do whatever the fuck you want with it
|
On December 06 2016 14:12 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 10:58 Sbrubbles wrote:On December 06 2016 10:11 Logo wrote:On December 06 2016 08:55 TanGeng wrote:
Do banks still want 20%??? But even 20% seems doable. I don't know maybe 14k just doesn't seem like all that much to me. Where I am you need all cash to be competitive because of investors unless you want to offer like 10-30k over asking, but that varies by even small geographical differences. Likewise a mortgage would be about the same price or less than rent, I don't know if that's true everywhere, but it makes it quite attractive to buy. How does a renter based economy play into things like wealth concentration? Like it seems pretty bad if you have a middle class all renting and an upper class that gets to own + own rental property + pass all that on to kids. In principle it shouldn't play into wealth concentration because there are other ways to hold wealth. In practice, though, if there are government programs and subsidies to encourage home ownership (which would explain buying being better than renting), then that does affect wealth concentration because it's essentially a subsidy to low and medium income families to save. To be fair, I don't think I've ever read a rigorous study on the effect of home ownership programs on the saving rate, but it sounds plausible at first glance. Off course renter based economy plays into wealth concentration. Debt based economy like credit cards/mortgages as well. The money (the rent/interest) is flowing from the lower/middle class to the upper/investor class. Owner ship does accumulate wealth (well It more holds wealth as you wont make more then the inflation) but if you use a mortgage to buy then you are still paying of someone else ,which can be profitable btw if the price of the house rises more then the interest you pay. Accumulating with a mortgage on the property and slowly paying it off is basicly the same as safing,which off course does accumulate wealth. Mortgages where you only pay the rent and don't pay off (not sure if they exist in the usa) is the same as renting from the bank.
My point is simple, and I think you've misunderstood it: a family can save up and buy a house or can save up, buy any other investment vehicle (stocks for example), pay rent and receive the returns from the investment vehicle. In principle wealth concentration is the same in both scenarios because the wealth is there, just in different forms. Note that I said save up and buy, but it can be buy and save up (aka, finance your house), what matters is the "save up" part, the specific money flows are irrelevant. House ownership policies can affect wealth concentration because they subsidise the "save up" part for low and middle income families (though there are other, more important determinants of wealth concentration which I'll not mention because they are irrelevant to this specific point about housing).
|
On December 06 2016 15:09 xDaunt wrote:
I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but given that state law mandates how the electors vote, what is to stop Trump from getting an injunction to force the vote in his favor?
that might work but it's unclear. iirc the elector mandate laws have never been challenged in federal court, it's not clear if they'd withstand a constitutional challenge.
edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#U.S._Supreme_Court
has a bit more detail.
looks like requiring electors to claim they'll support the candidate is ok; but actually requiring them to follow up on their pledge may well not be.
|
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented.
|
On December 06 2016 22:58 farvacola wrote:
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented.
Considering how utterly outdated the elector system is. I don't see why they would split 4-4 on this.
Do you think that a few unruly electors would be allowed to overturn the results of an election? That any Supreme Court Justice would allow such an undermining of the United States?
Not happening.
|
On December 06 2016 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 22:58 farvacola wrote:
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented. Considering how utterly outdated the elector system is. I don't see why they would split 4-4 on this. Do you think that a few unruly electors would be allowed to overturn the results of an election? That any Supreme Court Justice would allow such an undermining of the United States? Not happening.
regardless of how outdated it is; the electoral college in general is explicitly constitutional.
and the documents from the founding tend to indicate that electors would be entirely within their rights to do so.
so if we're following strict rule of law, it might well be the case that you'd have to allow it.
The supreme court in general likes ot punt on issues if it can find a way to do so.
they might just let it stand; knowing that it would then be a contested election and go to a republican controlled congress.
|
On December 06 2016 23:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2016 22:58 farvacola wrote:
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented. Considering how utterly outdated the elector system is. I don't see why they would split 4-4 on this. Do you think that a few unruly electors would be allowed to overturn the results of an election? That any Supreme Court Justice would allow such an undermining of the United States? Not happening. regardless of how outdated it is; the electoral college in general is explicitly constitutional. and the documents from the founding tend to indicate that electors would be entirely within their rights to do so. The supreme court in general likes ot punt on issues if it can find a way to do so. they might just let it stand; knowing that it would then be a contested election and go to a republican controlled congress.
Their not going to avoid a ruling on who becomes the next President of the USA.
Its one thing to abstain on social changes, the leadership of the country is quiet another.
|
That reasoning is exactly why they'd punt; even Ginsburg dislikes judicial activism, and if the court's ensuing decision can be characterized as a "ruling on who becomes the next President of the USA," you'd better believe that the court is seriously going to consider abstention in this scenario. Literally no one in the legal community, majority included, thinks Bush v. Gore was a good thing.
|
Plus with a vacancy even more reason to punt it.
|
On December 06 2016 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 23:34 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2016 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2016 22:58 farvacola wrote:
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented. Considering how utterly outdated the elector system is. I don't see why they would split 4-4 on this. Do you think that a few unruly electors would be allowed to overturn the results of an election? That any Supreme Court Justice would allow such an undermining of the United States? Not happening. regardless of how outdated it is; the electoral college in general is explicitly constitutional. and the documents from the founding tend to indicate that electors would be entirely within their rights to do so. The supreme court in general likes ot punt on issues if it can find a way to do so. they might just let it stand; knowing that it would then be a contested election and go to a republican controlled congress. Their not going to avoid a ruling on who becomes the next President of the USA. Its one thing to abstain on social changes, the leadership of the country is quiet another.
it'd be entirely proper to avoid ruling on who becomes president of the USA. as farv elaborated on.
Anyways, a president would be chosen regardless of how they rule.
and if you follow the rule of law, it could well be that electors can do that.
I think they'd certainly be inclined to punt rather than have a 4-4 or 5-3 ruling. if they could get an 8-0 or 7-1 ruling, they might just go with that of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
