|
United States10533 Posts
|
The dark curiosity in me wants to see how hard the Dems would fight in court over the election tbh
|
On November 06 2020 08:20 Zambrah wrote:
How even necessary is Arizona even, I’d basically write it off at this point imo
It's not even remotely necessary. It's fun to win by more though.
|
Northern Ireland27240 Posts
Trump is going live soon? Is there somewhere I can watch this train wreck live?
|
On November 06 2020 08:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I expect Trump to echo this during the "press conference" tonight.
I expect our media to fail said ethics of airing this live.
Well let's hope Danglars was right that the court would never do such a thing
|
United States10533 Posts
The idealistic nature of the filibuster was it was designed to ensure that an idea could not be simply pushed through by the majority, but would rather need overwhelming approval to pass so that good ideas would be enforced. It was also not expected to be used so often as a political tool.
Yeah, lots of things were idealistic from our founding fathers. In the words of Trump: Sounds good, doesn't work.
|
United States10533 Posts
On November 06 2020 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Trump is going live soon? Is there somewhere I can watch this train wreck live?
Any youtube news stream basically. Just pull up a random one, FOX, ABC, NBC, whatever will be showing it.
|
On November 06 2020 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Trump is going live soon? Is there somewhere I can watch this train wreck live?
https://edition.cnn.com/ (have to click on the live window)
https://abcnews.go.com/Live
These are the 2 streams i have been watching while following this thread.
|
On November 06 2020 08:22 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:20 Excludos wrote:On November 06 2020 08:16 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 08:08 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote:On November 06 2020 08:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:53 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2020 07:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
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?). I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on- ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer. My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? Why is that a bad thing? If markets self-correct and resolve a whole slew of problems in all domains why would this not apply to the two political parties? Markets are about allocation of resources and the moral extension of self-propriety. Political parties represent political ideals and values. Theyre nothing alike. How about if we added Singapore and Hong Kong so we added a permanent 4 GOP seats relegating Dems to near permanent minority status. Would you argue that the Dems need to kick out AOC and Sanders and move towards more classically liberal positions on economics? you are becoming incomprehensible Yeah not sure what he's going off of anymore. Feel like maybe his bias is showing a bit too much and he just needs to double down on everything. He definitely has not had a fun time with this election. What? I actually prefer a divided government as I prefer gridlock rather than the inexorable expansion of statism (faster under dems slower with reps). Im ecstatic GOP kept the Senate (could care less if Trump won or not given that scenario). (Its also not like the GOP reverses the awful impositions from the past. Still have ACA, still have all the gun laws from 86, 68, 34, still have the Patriot Act, still have all these ABC departments and agencies, etc. So having GOP control all 3 branches is not exactly thrilling for me) Is this the "Thank god our system is bad so they can't get anything done, because government doesn't work" argument? Yes. This is also why Danglars advocated the filibuster. Being unable to even discuss something without 3/5 of the chamber agreeing with you highly stifles progress.
"Progress". Its only progress when your side is in power? I heard the D's liked the filibuster the last few years. Why you hate progress?
|
United States10533 Posts
On November 06 2020 08:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:22 Nevuk wrote:On November 06 2020 08:20 Excludos wrote:On November 06 2020 08:16 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 08:08 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote:On November 06 2020 08:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:53 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2020 07:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on-ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing.
Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well.
One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one.
It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer. My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? Why is that a bad thing? If markets self-correct and resolve a whole slew of problems in all domains why would this not apply to the two political parties? Markets are about allocation of resources and the moral extension of self-propriety. Political parties represent political ideals and values. Theyre nothing alike. How about if we added Singapore and Hong Kong so we added a permanent 4 GOP seats relegating Dems to near permanent minority status. Would you argue that the Dems need to kick out AOC and Sanders and move towards more classically liberal positions on economics? you are becoming incomprehensible Yeah not sure what he's going off of anymore. Feel like maybe his bias is showing a bit too much and he just needs to double down on everything. He definitely has not had a fun time with this election. What? I actually prefer a divided government as I prefer gridlock rather than the inexorable expansion of statism (faster under dems slower with reps). Im ecstatic GOP kept the Senate (could care less if Trump won or not given that scenario). (Its also not like the GOP reverses the awful impositions from the past. Still have ACA, still have all the gun laws from 86, 68, 34, still have the Patriot Act, still have all these ABC departments and agencies, etc. So having GOP control all 3 branches is not exactly thrilling for me) Is this the "Thank god our system is bad so they can't get anything done, because government doesn't work" argument? Yes. This is also why Danglars advocated the filibuster. Being unable to even discuss something without 3/5 of the chamber agreeing with you highly stifles progress. "Progress". Its only progress when your side is in power? I heard the D's liked the filibuster the last few years. Why you hate progress?
Pretty sure Republicans started using it first. In fact, the political weaponization to this extent (what I call hyper-modern politics) was a Republican strategy when Mitch McConnell realized what he could do with the rules of the Senate.
|
If the Trump campaign officials can be proud of anything, they were definitely bang on that he needed to reclaim the suburban mom vote (at least in PA). As we see actual final vote counts Biden is both flipping a lot of places and chunking out the margin Trump had in 2016 in others.
And there's still so many Philly votes...
On November 06 2020 08:24 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Well let's hope Danglars was right that the court would never do such a thing
I think they at least need a pretense. They could *maybe* throw out the PA absentee ballots received after the election. But I don't think that will be nearly enough to save Trump there. Michigan is way out of reach, and WI is too.
|
United States10533 Posts
This whole thread is hilarious from a lawyer's perspective. The judge's attitude is just spot on with what the rest of the country is feeling right now.
|
On November 06 2020 08:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:08 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote:On November 06 2020 08:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:53 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2020 07:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS 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?). I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on- ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer. My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? Why is that a bad thing? If markets self-correct and resolve a whole slew of problems in all domains why would this not apply to the two political parties? Markets are about allocation of resources and the moral extension of self-propriety. Political parties represent political ideals and values. Theyre nothing alike. How about if we added Singapore and Hong Kong so we added a permanent 4 GOP seats relegating Dems to near permanent minority status. Would you argue that the Dems need to kick out AOC and Sanders and move towards more classically liberal positions on economics? you are becoming incomprehensible Yeah not sure what he's going off of anymore. Feel like maybe his bias is showing a bit too much and he just needs to double down on everything. He definitely has not had a fun time with this election. What? I actually prefer a divided government as I prefer gridlock rather than the inexorable expansion of statism (faster under dems slower with reps). Im ecstatic GOP kept the Senate (could care less if Trump won or not given that scenario). (Its also not like the GOP reverses the awful impositions from the past. Still have ACA, still have all the gun laws from 86, 68, 34, still have the Patriot Act, still have all these ABC departments and agencies, etc. So having GOP control all 3 branches is not exactly thrilling for me)
Statism? Is that even a word people use?
You do know that humans are hierachical beings, and that the only alternative to statism is tribal warlordism, right?
|
'A non-zero amount of people in the room' lmao
|
United States10533 Posts
|
United States10533 Posts
https://twitter.com/ejreports/status/1324490984063946754?s=20
Chatham has now changed its mind, will post the ballots tonight. Chatham is expected to give Biden another 7-8k of votes. Roughly 15k left there, if Biden wins 75%, he would gain 7.5k of the vote, closing the lead to just 2k with a little bit of Atlanta left to report.
|
Northern Ireland27240 Posts
|
GA seems almost certain to end up in "recounts could actually change the outcome" range...yowza.
|
On November 06 2020 08:27 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:26 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 08:22 Nevuk wrote:On November 06 2020 08:20 Excludos wrote:On November 06 2020 08:16 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 08:08 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote:On November 06 2020 08:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:53 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2020 07:46 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer.
My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? Why is that a bad thing? If markets self-correct and resolve a whole slew of problems in all domains why would this not apply to the two political parties? Markets are about allocation of resources and the moral extension of self-propriety. Political parties represent political ideals and values. Theyre nothing alike. How about if we added Singapore and Hong Kong so we added a permanent 4 GOP seats relegating Dems to near permanent minority status. Would you argue that the Dems need to kick out AOC and Sanders and move towards more classically liberal positions on economics? you are becoming incomprehensible Yeah not sure what he's going off of anymore. Feel like maybe his bias is showing a bit too much and he just needs to double down on everything. He definitely has not had a fun time with this election. What? I actually prefer a divided government as I prefer gridlock rather than the inexorable expansion of statism (faster under dems slower with reps). Im ecstatic GOP kept the Senate (could care less if Trump won or not given that scenario). (Its also not like the GOP reverses the awful impositions from the past. Still have ACA, still have all the gun laws from 86, 68, 34, still have the Patriot Act, still have all these ABC departments and agencies, etc. So having GOP control all 3 branches is not exactly thrilling for me) Is this the "Thank god our system is bad so they can't get anything done, because government doesn't work" argument? Yes. This is also why Danglars advocated the filibuster. Being unable to even discuss something without 3/5 of the chamber agreeing with you highly stifles progress. "Progress". Its only progress when your side is in power? I heard the D's liked the filibuster the last few years. Why you hate progress? Pretty sure Republicans started using it first. In fact, the political weaponization to this extent (what I call hyper-modern politics) was a Republican strategy when Mitch McConnell realized what he could do with the rules of the Senate.
You're crediting the wrong Republican though. The no compromise Republican strategy was started before Mitch with Newt Gringrich.
|
Yeah with the double runoff and likely recount, Georgia is gonna be in the headlines for a while I'd guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
7060
969
55
EPT
