|
100% cock
(The only time in TL history I could get away with this post)
|
United States10589 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 06:50 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 06:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:39 Shinokuki wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). Just like amy coney barrett and any other slimy GOP trying to reason why HURR DURR should be like this. No country is adopting this archaic voting system based on some 1800 slave owner Read the Federalist Papers and the ratifying conventions and understand the Articles of Confederation. Youre just displaying your ignorance to the world. You realize that the Federalist Papers are not the last word for interpreting the creation of this nation right? Jesus conservatives cling onto that shit as much as the bible. Those documents and debates are central to the formation and nature of our Government and its institutions. If you want to understand the how and why of them you must know that history and those documents. You need to read Madison and Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists and understand the precursor Articles of Confederation. Just saying huuur durrr slave owner is peak stupidity. Id also add itd be a good idea to read Locke and Montisqeue but whatever.
I never insinuated your strawman that I would say "hurr durr slave owner". But trying to only favor the side of the federalist beliefs is a misrepresentation of how our country was founded. It was founded with many months of debate and argument from both sides, and it was intense to the point where many feared the nation would never even form properly and we would be left to 13 colonies. The idea that you would put all the weight onto the federalist papers are you implied in your last comment is nonsense, and it is coming from a place of conservative rhetoric.
To be sure, those papers are incredibly important and any law student should read them from cover to cover. But it is not the end all for the discussion of our country's foundation.
|
On November 06 2020 06:59 FlaShFTW wrote:Penis or sideways empire state building?
Are you guys even american?? This looks like a 100% genuine freedom missile, probably fired from an all-american Justice Carrier.
|
On November 06 2020 06:53 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 06:45 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:37 Nevuk wrote:On November 06 2020 06:35 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:32 Broetchenholer wrote:
The reasoning against a representation of million of Americans is from the completely wrong point of view. It's not the voting populace that needs to adopt to the political parties, it's the parties needing to adopt to to the voting populace. It's exactly the same mindset that ends with voter disenfranchisement because politiciansthink it's their right to only represent the people they care about. If the only way the GOP can cling to power is to hold onto the abitrary ruling that 52 GOP senators represent only 153 million americans and no more can ever be included, why did the US ever create more states, clearly, at some point before, new states would have meant a shift in political power somewhere else.
Also, what declaration of political bankruptcy is it to say, the GOP would never win DC or PR? You realize we had a civil war in large part to the Missouri Compromise which ya know...was about adding new states. Foreigners ignorant of US history shouldnt be so boisterous on this topic. That is some wild causation and correlation. The Missouri Compromise was made to delay the civil war. It didn't CAUSE it. The vast majority of historians are in agreement that the Missouri Compromise was a huge impetus for the start of the civil war (increasing tensions, ramping up strife, etc.). Remember Lincoln said he'd never free slaves if he could maintain the Union and the Missouri Compromise was a big issue relating to this. Oh, so your point is that by making ending slavery more plausible, the compromise made Lincoln ending slavery a real possibility, thus leading to the civil war? That's ... not an argument I would be making publicly. As it implies you think chattel slavery still shouldn't have been ended. Also: Lincoln was still a politician. They've always lied or spoken in half truths throughout history. He said a lot of wildly different things on this very topic. The other difference is that there's literally no issue right now that is as divisive as Slavery. The broadest differences aren't very far. We're talking about some people wanting private healthcare vs others not. None of the points of in actual contention are going to get <30% of the vote in any state, and most would wind up closer to 60/40.
How you read I made any personal judgment on this history is lunacy. If thats the level of your discourse I'll refrain from wasting my time.
|
No news of Trump whatsoever.
Anyone betting on the fact that he only tweets to fire up the violence of his supporters while not showing to the journalists cause he is carerfully planning his escape of the US to avoid prison ?
Sounds so stupid, right ?
But, you know, that's Trump...
|
On November 06 2020 07:03 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 06:59 FlaShFTW wrote:Penis or sideways empire state building? Are you guys even american?? This looks like a 100% genuine freedom missile, probably fired from an all-american Justice Carrier.
Justice Carrier has arrived.
|
On November 06 2020 06:56 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 06:35 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:32 Broetchenholer wrote:
The reasoning against a representation of million of Americans is from the completely wrong point of view. It's not the voting populace that needs to adopt to the political parties, it's the parties needing to adopt to to the voting populace. It's exactly the same mindset that ends with voter disenfranchisement because politiciansthink it's their right to only represent the people they care about. If the only way the GOP can cling to power is to hold onto the abitrary ruling that 52 GOP senators represent only 153 million americans and no more can ever be included, why did the US ever create more states, clearly, at some point before, new states would have meant a shift in political power somewhere else.
Also, what declaration of political bankruptcy is it to say, the GOP would never win DC or PR? You realize we had a civil war in large part to the Missouri Compromise which ya know...was about adding new states. Foreigners ignorant of US history shouldnt be so boisterous on this topic. PS GOP would have as much chance of winning DC as they would if Cuba, NK, or Venezuela were added as a state (DC literally votes like 92-94% Democrat). PR is more like Wyoming levels of partisanship than DC (70% rather than 95%). Are you implying that modern day republicans would be willing to start a second civil war over the right to deny political representation to non-white people? I mean you might be right but that sounds like a strawman from an MSNBC fever dream. It's absolutely insane more than a century after the civil war and 50 years after Jim Crow people in DC, PR, Guam and the American Virgin island still dont have the right to vote. Event the Brittish Empire was dismantled in the 60s ffs.
Lol. Im talking about the balance of political power and youre here implying bullshit. It could be fucking Canada or Norway and the GOP would fight it because again....its about ensuring one party rule or maintaining competitive balance.
|
On November 06 2020 07:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 06:50 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 06:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:39 Shinokuki wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). Just like amy coney barrett and any other slimy GOP trying to reason why HURR DURR should be like this. No country is adopting this archaic voting system based on some 1800 slave owner Read the Federalist Papers and the ratifying conventions and understand the Articles of Confederation. Youre just displaying your ignorance to the world. You realize that the Federalist Papers are not the last word for interpreting the creation of this nation right? Jesus conservatives cling onto that shit as much as the bible. Those documents and debates are central to the formation and nature of our Government and its institutions. If you want to understand the how and why of them you must know that history and those documents. You need to read Madison and Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists and understand the precursor Articles of Confederation. Just saying huuur durrr slave owner is peak stupidity. Id also add itd be a good idea to read Locke and Montisqeue but whatever.
Or you can move the attention to the present and see how every other western country has a vastly superior election system. USA is just not a modern nation anymore, and is losing ground on so many fronts. Being stuck in the past will not help you out of the misery.
I said last time that electing Trump was abandoning the position as a superpower, and it might be lost forever.
|
On November 06 2020 07:05 SkrollK wrote:
No news of Trump whatsoever.
Anyone betting on the fact that he only tweets to fire up the violence of his supporters while not showing to the journalists cause he is carerfully planning his escape of the US to avoid prison ?
Sounds so stupid, right ?
But, you know, that's Trump...
He has 2 months, senate will also be Republican until at least january... I would be surprised, if they wouldn't use this time for inflicting maximum damage and enriching themselves as good as they can.
|
On November 06 2020 07:03 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 06:59 FlaShFTW wrote:Penis or sideways empire state building? Are you guys even american?? This looks like a 100% genuine freedom missile, probably fired from an all-american Justice Carrier.
Clearly a Freedom Missile. Used to deliver that sweet, sweet FreedomTM to an oil-rich country near you.
|
Also maybe the 18th and 19th century pieces of legislation were crafted at a time and a place that doesn't reflect 21st century world and they could be due a revision. I actually did go through the articles of confederation and it has held pretty well for a document from 18th century. But stuff like the 3/5s of a person and so on could also be now probably permanently removed rather than just being overruled by amendments. Also it could be a good idea to clarify issues such as the second amendment via legislation rather than leaving it to judges.
I know it isn't easy or obvious how these should be done, but other countries still manage to revise and rewrite their constitutions and they don't break apart.
|
On November 06 2020 07:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 06:57 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:44 Zambrah wrote:
Your insistence that the Missouri Compromise means adding any states means civil war implies that any state added at any point in American history should have also had some sort of civil war attached.
I dont believe there was a Civil War when we had Alaska and Hawaii enter as States. Idaho and Wyoming also did not cause a civil war when they entered the Union. Utah and Oklahoma also didn't seem to have caused civil wars. New Mexico and Arizona didnt either...
Maybe the Civil War wasn't caused primarily by adding states, maybe it was due to other things...
A little history. Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states relatively together because Democrats wanted Alaska and Republicans wanted Hawaii (look how that turned out today lol). Usually states only get added with some semblance of balance of current power. Rarely has multiple states gotten added that only benefited one party (and again last time that happened it wasnt good for the polity of the US). Good history read on circumstances around HI and AK can be read here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-last-time-congress-created-a-new-state-hawaii This sounds like an argument for 'make PR and DC states, with how Alaska and Hawaii flipped, republicans can flip them too through a simple policy adjustment.'
Um no because at the time HI was really GOP (look at its voting history) and AK was really Democrat. Its nothing like PR and DC currently. If you add them today its auto +4 to Dems. When they added HI and AK it was +2 Dem and +2 GOP.
|
On November 06 2020 07:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:03 plated.rawr wrote:On November 06 2020 06:59 FlaShFTW wrote:Penis or sideways empire state building? Are you guys even american?? This looks like a 100% genuine freedom missile, probably fired from an all-american Justice Carrier. Justice Carrier has arrived.
Flair checks out.
Some news from Georgia, Biden is 9500 votes behind... and PA SOS will make a statement in 3min :
|
On November 06 2020 07:02 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:00 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:50 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 06:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:39 Shinokuki wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). Just like amy coney barrett and any other slimy GOP trying to reason why HURR DURR should be like this. No country is adopting this archaic voting system based on some 1800 slave owner Read the Federalist Papers and the ratifying conventions and understand the Articles of Confederation. Youre just displaying your ignorance to the world. You realize that the Federalist Papers are not the last word for interpreting the creation of this nation right? Jesus conservatives cling onto that shit as much as the bible. Those documents and debates are central to the formation and nature of our Government and its institutions. If you want to understand the how and why of them you must know that history and those documents. You need to read Madison and Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists and understand the precursor Articles of Confederation. Just saying huuur durrr slave owner is peak stupidity. Id also add itd be a good idea to read Locke and Montisqeue but whatever. I never insinuated your strawman that I would say "hurr durr slave owner". But trying to only favor the side of the federalist beliefs is a misrepresentation of how our country was founded. It was founded with many months of debate and argument from both sides, and it was intense to the point where many feared the nation would never even form properly and we would be left to 13 colonies. The idea that you would put all the weight onto the federalist papers are you implied in your last comment is nonsense, and it is coming from a place of conservative rhetoric. To be sure, those papers are incredibly important and any law student should read them from cover to cover. But it is not the end all for the discussion of our country's foundation.
I advocate reading the Federalist side because they won. I know the history (Im a true Robert Yates style anti-federalist and would much rather have the articles of confederation and a much more decentralized powerless state than the Constitution). Why would you read Brutus if you wanted to know how or why our institutions are the way they are.
|
Will GA decide,will we have to waith for PA next or will it be much later and come down to nevada and AZ.
The thought of having to wait another day is not atractive,it really is beeing stretched out as long as possible lol.
|
On November 06 2020 07:05 SkrollK wrote:
No news of Trump whatsoever.
Anyone betting on the fact that he only tweets to fire up the violence of his supporters while not showing to the journalists cause he is carerfully planning his escape of the US to avoid prison ?
Sounds so stupid, right ?
But, you know, that's Trump...
He still has 2 months left in office, he doesn't need to run just yet.
He will tho. He's said as much himself
|
United States10589 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:15 pmh wrote:
Will GA decide,will we have to waith for PA next or will it be much later and come down to nevada and AZ.
The thought of having to wait another day is not atractive,it really is beeing stretched out as long as possible lol.
GA decision will get Biden to 269, he needs one more state after that (though technically most pollsters and myself have already symbolically called Nevada).
|
On November 06 2020 07:15 pmh wrote:
Will GA decide,will we have to waith for PA next or will it be much later and come down to nevada and AZ.
The thought of having to wait another day is not atractive,it really is beeing stretched out as long as possible lol.
GA would get Biden to 269 so he would need one more state called in his favor to seal the deal.
|
On November 06 2020 07:07 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:00 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:50 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 06:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:39 Shinokuki wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). Just like amy coney barrett and any other slimy GOP trying to reason why HURR DURR should be like this. No country is adopting this archaic voting system based on some 1800 slave owner Read the Federalist Papers and the ratifying conventions and understand the Articles of Confederation. Youre just displaying your ignorance to the world. You realize that the Federalist Papers are not the last word for interpreting the creation of this nation right? Jesus conservatives cling onto that shit as much as the bible. Those documents and debates are central to the formation and nature of our Government and its institutions. If you want to understand the how and why of them you must know that history and those documents. You need to read Madison and Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists and understand the precursor Articles of Confederation. Just saying huuur durrr slave owner is peak stupidity. Id also add itd be a good idea to read Locke and Montisqeue but whatever. Or you can move the attention to the present and see how every other western country has a vastly superior election system. USA is just not a modern nation anymore, and is losing ground on so many fronts. Being stuck in the past will not help you out of the misery. I said last time that electing Trump was abandoning the position as a superpower, and it might be lost forever.
You realize most nations have modeled their country and institutions off the US right? Having bicameral legislature, judicial branch with SC, checks and balances and a constitution, etc. When the US ratified the Constitution there were almost no similarly styled countries in the world (the Iroquous nation were probably the closest in practice). You can thank the US for how Germany was set up post unification.
|
On November 06 2020 07:10 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 06 2020 06:57 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:44 Zambrah wrote:
Your insistence that the Missouri Compromise means adding any states means civil war implies that any state added at any point in American history should have also had some sort of civil war attached.
I dont believe there was a Civil War when we had Alaska and Hawaii enter as States. Idaho and Wyoming also did not cause a civil war when they entered the Union. Utah and Oklahoma also didn't seem to have caused civil wars. New Mexico and Arizona didnt either...
Maybe the Civil War wasn't caused primarily by adding states, maybe it was due to other things...
A little history. Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states relatively together because Democrats wanted Alaska and Republicans wanted Hawaii (look how that turned out today lol). Usually states only get added with some semblance of balance of current power. Rarely has multiple states gotten added that only benefited one party (and again last time that happened it wasnt good for the polity of the US). Good history read on circumstances around HI and AK can be read here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-last-time-congress-created-a-new-state-hawaii This sounds like an argument for 'make PR and DC states, with how Alaska and Hawaii flipped, republicans can flip them too through a simple policy adjustment.' Um no because at the time HI was really GOP (look at its voting history) and AK was really Democrat. Its nothing like PR and DC currently. If you add them today its auto +4 to Dems. When they added HI and AK it was +2 Dem and +2 GOP.
PR really isn't that democratic. Its political parties have nothing in common with US ones.
They just had a scandal last year where their governor had to resign after leaked conversations revealed he was a giant, homophobic racist who was trying to use the press to bully his political enemies.
If Trump's not on the ballot (he's hated for some obvious reasons there) then it's unclear what they do.
Also, while this was a non-binding referendum, it's a bit different than the others in that if No had prevailed, they would have created a commission to ask for full independence.
Realistically, they should separate from the US entirely if not a state : they clearly won't be getting aid like one otherwise, and the taxes they do pay clearly don't help them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmCv1eeVcAEUooo?format=jpg&name=large)
