He, his wife, and his aide have tested positive for Covid19.
The crazy just got turned up to 11.
Now he tests out how well HCQ and zinc works for him and Melania.
Also, what does "test positive" even mean? He could easily be asymptomatic like the majority of people. Or he feels like shit for a week. Mine lasted two shitty weeks. Or he bites the hoagie and Pence takes on Biden. Betcha he does virtual rallies on a big screen, even if he feels like shit.
I'm sure the cheering of leftists is deafening on social media.
I'm still not gonna wear a face diaper whether Trump lives or not.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 02, 2020, 03:32:49 AM
Now he tests out how well HCQ and zinc works for him and Melania.
Also, what does "test positive" even mean? He could easily be asymptomatic like the majority of people. Or he feels like shit for a week. Mine lasted two shitty weeks. Or he bites the hoagie and Pence takes on Biden. Betcha he does virtual rallies on a big screen, even if he feels like shit.
I'm sure the cheering of leftists is deafening on social media.
I'm still not gonna wear a face diaper whether Trump lives or not.
The lefties are, in fact, blood-dancing on social media. So you win that bet.
But your point is valid. It'll be interesting to see what 'flavor' hits Trump and the missus, though my money is on them using the HCQ/Z-pack cocktail and smoking it across the board. Trump's not going to give his enemies the satisfaction of dying. He's FAR too vindictive for that :)
(Frankly, I was surprised it took THIS long for him to catch it, even with his germophobic tendencies.)
I've seen responses that range from the civil, like Rachel Maddow, to my lefty friends on Facebook posting some crazy revenge porn shit.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 02, 2020, 12:19:49 PM
I've seen responses that range from the civil, like Rachel Maddow, to my lefty friends on Facebook posting some crazy revenge porn shit.
I'm going to check out the Infractions board on TBP in a day or two and see if anyone's copped a warning or ban for over-celebrating.
Now we get to see whose Narrative has control.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 02, 2020, 03:32:49 AM
Now he tests out how well HCQ and zinc works for him and Melania.
I'm curious about this as well. I haven't seen anything about him or Melania taking HCQ. What I see is that he's instead taking an experimental treatment from Regeneron.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/regeneron-is-trumps-covid-19-treatment-what-to-know
Apparently the President has been moved to Walter Reed. May just be precautionary, but it's concerning none the less.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-taken-to-walter-reed-hospital-for-tests-following-covid-19-diagnosis-212316884.html (https://news.yahoo.com/trump-taken-to-walter-reed-hospital-for-tests-following-covid-19-diagnosis-212316884.html)
Quote from: Arkansan on October 03, 2020, 01:31:42 AM
Apparently the President has been moved to Walter Reed. May just be precautionary, but it's concerning none the less.
Is anyone really concerned about this? The coverage I've seen just says he's quarantining there, as if it were routine, even the coverage that immediately switches to talk about the line of succession, the 25th amendment, and whether any enemies of the US will take advantage of a sick prez.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 02, 2020, 08:13:12 AMThe lefties are, in fact, blood-dancing on social media. So you win that bet.
Who would have bet against that?
Plus it was an easy bet for me. Thanks to LA's CoronaDumb mayor, I can't use the executive lounge I pay for, thus 2020's office is my balcony. I can't complain because the balcony is normally my girlfriend's zen garden so I'm set up like a samurai lord with a laptop.
But I did learn about Trump getting
the MOST deadly virus evars in the whole universe because my moron neighbors were screaming out "Trump's gonna die!" off their balconies and celebrating at the pool...while social distancing, of course.
And I'm VERY glad the left are celebrating. Everything to broadcast it far and wide should be done and the left's blood-dance should drench the entire nation.
Why? It's not easy for neighbors to kill neighbors in a civil war...until the last straw is snapped to pieces and burned to ashes. Then nothing stops the red tide.
The tree of liberty is mighty thirsty.
BTW, what's the Republican ticket if Trump ascends to meme heaven?
Do the RINOs and swamp critters make their own behind closed doors, or does Pence carry the banner and pick his own running mate?
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 04, 2020, 12:28:52 AM
And I'm VERY glad the left are celebrating. Everything to broadcast it far and wide should be done and the left's blood-dance should drench the entire nation. BTW, what's the Republican ticket if Trump ascends to meme heaven?
As well it might. I've seen a few too many video clips, thanks, from grieving survivors who died of COVID after telling their loved ones that the President said they didn't need to wear masks or distance, so they didn't. Or that the President said injecting themselves with bleach would cure them, and they died of
that. Or the three (so far) reporters from the White House press room who've come down with it after Trump demanded they take their masks off. Do you possibly think that all those Republican senators, congressmen, cabinet secretaries and the like would have come down with it were it not for the aggressive "Taking precautions is a
liberal thing" line that Trump's been pushing from the get-go? I haven't lost anyone I know -- yet -- nor have caught it myself -- yet -- but the right-wing moonbats blood dance all the damn time. This is karma, pure and simple.
As far as the ticket goes, were Trump to die before the election, this would be the Mother of All Ratfucks, and a constitutional crisis to boot. Early voting, absentee ballots, those are well underway in a number of states. Each state has its own deadline as far as how late the ticket can be changed, and probably in almost all of them it'd be too late even if the RNC acted at once ... and y'might have noticed that the White House breakout infected the RNC chairwoman as well, so they might not be as quick-acting as all of that. Pence would not be the legal inheritor, before the fact, of votes cast for Trump.
Were Trump to die
after the election, there's at least precedent for that: 1872, when the losing candidate died a month afterwards, but before the Electoral College met. (As to that, in 1872, two states invalidated all votes for Greeley, on the grounds that dying made him ineligible.) But since the Electors aren't legally bound to vote for their candidates anyway, Horace Greeley's electors voted for five different candidates, including a few for Greeley himself. Nothing prevents a Ted Cruz or a Marco Rubio from asking Electors to vote for them instead of Pence, although I expect the Republicans would rally behind any candidate that would keep the election from passing to the House.
Quote from: Pat on October 03, 2020, 09:46:42 AM
Quote from: Arkansan on October 03, 2020, 01:31:42 AM
Apparently the President has been moved to Walter Reed. May just be precautionary, but it's concerning none the less.
Is anyone really concerned about this? The coverage I've seen just says he's quarantining there, as if it were routine, even the coverage that immediately switches to talk about the line of succession, the 25th amendment, and whether any enemies of the US will take advantage of a sick prez.
To answer my own question: Yes. The press was doing their best to read what the president's personal physician said at the press conference yesterday as direly as possible. Most of it was silly: The doc stated specific numbers for something (like the president's pulse), but only said it was in the normal range for others (like blood pressure), and they were pretending that was a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.
Though to be fair, the physician was clearly being evasive about whether Trump was on oxygen at some point. They asked him whether the president had ever been on oxygen, and the answer was always something like "the president is not currently on oxygen" or "the president was not on oxygen today or yesterday". They repeated the question about half a dozen times, even asking for specific days, and he never gave a clear answer that covered the entire time period. So it seems to be a reasonable supposition that the president was on oxygen, at least briefly.
Which doesn't mean much. From the other comments, it sounds like the president was quizzing the medical staff about all the options, and suggesting some of his own (hydroxychloroquine), and they're treating him extraordinarily aggressively because "he's the president" (in the words of the doc). The real takeaway is he's not asymptomatic, but his symptoms are very mild and he seems fine. That doesn't mean he's clear, because many patients with severe symptoms seem fine at this stage before worsening, but there's no reason to worry more than usual, and he's getting a ridiculous amount of care because of his position.
Quote from: Ravenswing on October 04, 2020, 07:28:40 AMAs well it might. I've seen a few too many video clips, thanks, from grieving survivors who died of COVID after telling their loved ones that the President said they didn't need to wear masks or distance, so they didn't. Or that the President said injecting themselves with bleach would cure them, and they died of that. Or the three (so far) reporters from the White House press room who've come down with it after Trump demanded they take their masks off. Do you possibly think that all those Republican senators, congressmen, cabinet secretaries and the like would have come down with it were it not for the aggressive "Taking precautions is a liberal thing" line that Trump's been pushing from the get-go? I haven't lost anyone I know -- yet -- nor have caught it myself -- yet -- but the right-wing moonbats blood dance all the damn time. This is karma, pure and simple.
Holy shit man where do you even get your news? The majority of what you said is pure utter bullshit. Seriously watch Tim Pool and detox yourself of these lies.
Quote from: Snowman0147 on October 04, 2020, 09:24:23 AMHoly shit man where do you even get your news? The majority of what you said is pure utter bullshit. Seriously watch Tim Pool and detox yourself of these lies.
V-I-D-E-O. Video clips of these victims talking, accompanied by obituaries that went out over international wire services. Video clips of Trump demanding, in the White House press room, that reporters take off their masks before he would answer their questions. Video clips of Trump giving his bleach and hydro talks. Trump's
own damn Twitter feed (or is @realdonaldtrump no longer his?). Mike Lee's and Thom Tillis' and Ron Johnson's own press offices (or are you screaming that the Republicans who state that they have COVID is "fake news?").
I swear, you guys. Screaming "fake news" at anything you don't like -- wrapped up like mummies in your little echo chambers -- no matter how heavily attested and with incontrovertible proof. Sorry, but this pandemic doesn't give a good goddamn what your politics are, and you can only lie about your test results and your body counts for so long.
Quote from: Ravenswing on October 04, 2020, 12:37:53 PM
Quote from: Snowman0147 on October 04, 2020, 09:24:23 AMHoly shit man where do you even get your news? The majority of what you said is pure utter bullshit. Seriously watch Tim Pool and detox yourself of these lies.
V-I-D-E-O. Video clips of these victims talking, accompanied by obituaries that went out over international wire services. Video clips of Trump demanding, in the White House press room, that reporters take off their masks before he would answer their questions. Video clips of Trump giving his bleach and hydro talks. Trump's own damn Twitter feed (or is @realdonaldtrump no longer his?). Mike Lee's and Thom Tillis' and Ron Johnson's own press offices (or are you screaming that the Republicans who state that they have COVID is "fake news?").
I swear, you guys. Screaming "fake news" at anything you don't like -- wrapped up like mummies in your little echo chambers -- no matter how heavily attested and with incontrovertible proof. Sorry, but this pandemic doesn't give a good goddamn what your politics are, and you can only lie about your test results and your body counts for so long.
Injecting bleach is pretty much as fake as fake news can be.
But I guess if the V-I-D-E-O says different....
When early voting was initiated, I want to believe somebody drafting the rules had to have considered the possibility of a candidate dying. Anyone have a link to what's on the books?
Ravenswing brings up a very good point about the electors and how they could just vote for who they want in states where there aren't specific rules about electors. I assume those states with elector rules forcing electors to cast their vote for the winning candidate would instead cast for the winning party, but there's the precedent of ineligibility in case of Trump dying before the election or even before the electors meet.
Quote from: Ravenswing on October 04, 2020, 12:37:53 PMI swear, you guys. Screaming "fake news" at anything you don't like -- wrapped up like mummies in your little echo chambers -- no matter how heavily attested and with incontrovertible proof.[/color]
I agree! We should go with incontrovertible proof!
Incontrovertible proof like how the box full of your face nappies says its does NOT protect from the China virus right on the side of the box!
Proof like how Dr. Birx of the NIH said the body count was being stuffed with people who died WITH the Rona, but not FROM the Rona. I can't wait until car accident victims get listed as heart disease deaths! He drove off the cliff, but he had CoronaChan so damn that murderous virus!!! And pay out our hospital that bonus cash baby! LOL.
Of course, my favorite incontrovertible proof was the CDC admitting only 6% of the body count died from the Rona whereas the other 94% had on average 2.6 additional co-morbidities.
Funny how nobody was sharing "grieving videos" in 2018 when 80k died from influenza in the USA. Why? Because it wasn't politically expedient to pimp their dead.
I check in here just to see what craziness you guys are up to. Still mostly waiting for some actual election commentary rather than the usual railing against an invented reality. Ravenswing has opened the door to actual reality, so I guess I'll make a rare post.
Both parties have rules in place to replace nominees who are unable to continue; the article at https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2020 (https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2020) seems to agree with everything else I've seen. Given that voting with the current ticket is already going, I suspect either party would continue with the deceased candidate and have the electors for that party determine who actually gets it, rather than risk splitting their general election votes between dead candidate and replacement candidate. (In 2000, Mel Carnahan won a Senate election despite being dead.)
I wonder why anyone would seek out commentary from the most extreme members of the other end of the political spectrum. (OK, I spend a little time here, but I would be surprised if anyone here is even close to the most extreme end of the right wing.)
The people on the left that I read have mostly offered sympathy (OK, Kos wants Trump to live so he can lose the election, be prosecuted and imprisoned, and see the ruin of his personal finances) or remained studiously neutral. In these sorts of situations, the right wing dredges up some obscure nobody to tar all Democrats, while it's major Republicans who advance cruel attacks and extreme conspiracy theories. A very common twitter post the last few days is Trump's mockery of Hillary Clinton's pneumonia, which coincidentally had its four year anniversary on Friday; and of course there's always a Trump tweet. While the Biden campaign has suspended negative advertising, the Trump campaign is still attacking Biden for wearing a mask too much and having smaller events. (Interestingly, at least one of the apostate Republicans who founded the Lincoln Project advocates keeping up the negative ads.)
Trump's doctor (medical or spin?) has admitted that he misrepresented things yesterday to be "upbeat"; nobody still in the administration has much credibility at this point, which is good for blunting any October surprises they may spring. Like their tax returns, the broad facts of a Presidential candidate's health should be known to the public. They knew enough from Hope Hicks' test result that Trump should never have gone to a buffet dinner maskless fundraiser on Thursday, even if Trump himself tested positive no earlier than the claimed timeline.
Since COVID-19 doesn't give up as quickly as human beings, I expect this will continue as the major topic of the rest of the campaign. Unlike calling members of the military suckers and losers, Woodward's tapes (ha, he almost used presidential tapes to bring down a Republican president early and late in his career), Trump not paying taxes, debate debacle, Melania's attacks on Christmas and separated children - not to mention all the things I've forgotten in just the past few weeks.
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 05:19:58 PM
Since COVID-19 doesn't give up as quickly as human beings, I expect this will continue as the major topic of the rest of the campaign. Unlike calling members of the military suckers and losers, Woodward's tapes (ha, he almost used presidential tapes to bring down a Republican president early and late in his career), Trump not paying taxes, debate debacle, Melania's attacks on Christmas and separated children - not to mention all the things I've forgotten in just the past few weeks.
Speaking of extreme conspiracy theories...
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 05:19:58 PM
Both parties have rules in place to replace nominees who are unable to continue; the article at https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2020 (https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2020) seems to agree with everything else I've seen. Given that voting with the current ticket is already going, I suspect either party would continue with the deceased candidate and have the electors for that party determine who actually gets it, rather than risk splitting their general election votes between dead candidate and replacement candidate. (In 2000, Mel Carnahan won a Senate election despite being dead.)
Specifically, the RNC will choose a new candidate. It's too late to change the name and reprint the ballots in most states, so Trump would remain on the ballot, not whomever the RNC chooses. At that point, it's up to the electoral college. In states where electors have discretion, they'll probably vote for the new RNC candidate. Some states do have laws that force electors to vote for whomever won the majority in the state, but the consequences are minor enough and they're unlikely to sanctioned away, so they'd probably vote the same way. And the RNC candidate would either lose or become president.
The one exception is if the electoral college didn't result in a majority winner, say if the RNC couldn't decide on a candidate so they split between Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. In which case Biden will win, because the House decides.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/02/were-final-stages-presidential-election-what-happens-if-candidate-withdraws-or-dies/
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 05:19:58 PM
I check in here just to see what craziness you guys are up to. Still mostly waiting for some actual election commentary rather than the usual railing against an invented reality. Ravenswing has opened the door to actual reality, so I guess I'll make a rare post.
Both parties have rules in place to replace nominees who are unable to continue; the article at https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2020 (https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2020) seems to agree with everything else I've seen. Given that voting with the current ticket is already going, I suspect either party would continue with the deceased candidate and have the electors for that party determine who actually gets it, rather than risk splitting their general election votes between dead candidate and replacement candidate. (In 2000, Mel Carnahan won a Senate election despite being dead.)
I wonder why anyone would seek out commentary from the most extreme members of the other end of the political spectrum. (OK, I spend a little time here, but I would be surprised if anyone here is even close to the most extreme end of the right wing.)
The people on the left that I read have mostly offered sympathy (OK, Kos wants Trump to live so he can lose the election, be prosecuted and imprisoned, and see the ruin of his personal finances) or remained studiously neutral. In these sorts of situations, the right wing dredges up some obscure nobody to tar all Democrats, while it's major Republicans who advance cruel attacks and extreme conspiracy theories. A very common twitter post the last few days is Trump's mockery of Hillary Clinton's pneumonia, which coincidentally had its four year anniversary on Friday; and of course there's always a Trump tweet. While the Biden campaign has suspended negative advertising, the Trump campaign is still attacking Biden for wearing a mask too much and having smaller events. (Interestingly, at least one of the apostate Republicans who founded the Lincoln Project advocates keeping up the negative ads.)
Trump's doctor (medical or spin?) has admitted that he misrepresented things yesterday to be "upbeat"; nobody still in the administration has much credibility at this point, which is good for blunting any October surprises they may spring. Like their tax returns, the broad facts of a Presidential candidate's health should be known to the public. They knew enough from Hope Hicks' test result that Trump should never have gone to a buffet dinner maskless fundraiser on Thursday, even if Trump himself tested positive no earlier than the claimed timeline.
Since COVID-19 doesn't give up as quickly as human beings, I expect this will continue as the major topic of the rest of the campaign. Unlike calling members of the military suckers and losers, Woodward's tapes (ha, he almost used presidential tapes to bring down a Republican president early and late in his career), Trump not paying taxes, debate debacle, Melania's attacks on Christmas and separated children - not to mention all the things I've forgotten in just the past few weeks.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 05:19:58 PM
Since COVID-19 doesn't give up as quickly as human beings, I expect this will continue as the major topic of the rest of the campaign. Unlike calling members of the military suckers and losers, Woodward's tapes (ha, he almost used presidential tapes to bring down a Republican president early and late in his career), Trump not paying taxes, debate debacle, Melania's attacks on Christmas and separated children - not to mention all the things I've forgotten in just the past few weeks.
I thought that the new york times article said that Trump paid over 4 million in taxes? Too far past the headline to read?
Scrolling down the page is racist.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 04, 2020, 05:58:03 PM
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 05:19:58 PM
Since COVID-19 doesn't give up as quickly as human beings, I expect this will continue as the major topic of the rest of the campaign. Unlike calling members of the military suckers and losers, Woodward's tapes (ha, he almost used presidential tapes to bring down a Republican president early and late in his career), Trump not paying taxes, debate debacle, Melania's attacks on Christmas and separated children - not to mention all the things I've forgotten in just the past few weeks.
Speaking of extreme conspiracy theories...
If the conspiracy theory is that they disappear from the news cycle, each has been overtaken by subsequent things. COVID-19 diagnosis pretty much overshadowed them all in the news feeds.
If you mean the specifics I list, all of these things were widely reported and never (entirely) rebutted. The suckers and losers one? Trump denied calling McCain a loser, except he retweeted a reference to him saying that, and there's video of him doing so. Woodward's tapes? All over the internet, and no denials that they are in fact Trump, so you can listen to them yourself. Trump not paying taxes*? NYT article says 10 of 15 years leading up to 2017; he claimed at the debate that he paid millions in 2016 and 2017, but he doesn't seem inclined to prove it by releasing his taxes. Tape of Melania? Out on the internet.
3 out of 4 from Trump himself; and he resists settling the other one.
*Yes, I mean US income taxes in 10 out of 15 years. Trump can easily clear it up by releasing his tax returns like every other modern president or presidential candidate.
Quote from: Pat on October 04, 2020, 06:08:06 PM
Specifically, the RNC will choose a new candidate. It's too late to change the name and reprint the ballots in most states, so Trump would remain on the ballot, not whomever the RNC chooses. At that point, it's up to the electoral college. In states where electors have discretion, they'll probably vote for the new RNC candidate. Some states do have laws that force electors to vote for whomever won the majority in the state, but the consequences are minor enough and they're unlikely to sanctioned away, so they'd probably vote the same way. And the RNC candidate would either lose or become president.
The one exception is if the electoral college didn't result in a majority winner, say if the RNC couldn't decide on a candidate so they split between Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. In which case Biden will win, because the House decides.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/02/were-final-stages-presidential-election-what-happens-if-candidate-withdraws-or-dies/
Some states have laws requiring electors to vote faithfully; not clear whether that would mean voting for the listed candidate or for the party's replacement candidate. The Supreme Court did uphold that (Colorado and Washington replaced faithless electors, I think). It's not clear whether that would persist round after round of voting; if the opponent has a majority of the electoral college, it's moot, but if not then nobody might get a majority (split between the replacement candidate and the replaced candidate) and maybe they would be freed in subsequent voting - not much purpose to electors being people if there are no circumstances in which they can vary from the state mandated vote.
If it goes to the House, the Republicans might win - each state gets one vote for its entire delegation (presumably no vote if it's evenly split?) and the Republicans control 26 state delegations even though the Democrats have a majority overall. But the Democrats with the Speaker position might be able to block the vote procedurally; who knows? More reasonably, the Democrats are trying to flip state delegation control to avoid losing a House vote.
Quote from: jeff37923 on October 04, 2020, 06:33:46 PM
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I am willing to beat anyone who plays a competitive game against me. (Ha, I posted something about games! Victory lap for me!)
Quote from: Shasarak on October 04, 2020, 04:17:44 PM
Injecting bleach is pretty much as fake as fake news can be.
But I guess if the V-I-D-E-O says different....
A quick check of Politifact would have pointed that out, but that site is probably too far to the right for him.
...although I am inclined to think anyone who even considers injecting themselves with bleach probably should...hopefully
before they breed
Quote from: Shasarak on October 04, 2020, 06:36:00 PM
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 05:19:58 PM
Since COVID-19 doesn't give up as quickly as human beings, I expect this will continue as the major topic of the rest of the campaign. Unlike calling members of the military suckers and losers, Woodward's tapes (ha, he almost used presidential tapes to bring down a Republican president early and late in his career), Trump not paying taxes, debate debacle, Melania's attacks on Christmas and separated children - not to mention all the things I've forgotten in just the past few weeks.
I thought that the new york times article said that Trump paid over 4 million in taxes? Too far past the headline to read?
Fair enough; I should say "no US income taxes in 10 of 15 years, and $750 in each of 2016 and 2017". (The more alarming news in that story seems to be the amounts he owes to unknown parties, a big red flag for those who give security clearances.)
But ... did Shasarak just endorse a New York Times article as a reliable source of information? Outing yourself as a latte-sipping elitist, I see. They don't cotton to that kind of thing around here.
Dogpile on Shasarak, everyone!
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 08:45:38 PM
If the conspiracy theory is that they disappear from the news cycle, each has been overtaken by subsequent things. COVID-19 diagnosis pretty much overshadowed them all in the news feeds.
If you mean the specifics I list, all of these things were widely reported and never (entirely) rebutted. The suckers and losers one? Trump denied calling McCain a loser, except he retweeted a reference to him saying that, and there's video of him doing so. Woodward's tapes? All over the internet, and no denials that they are in fact Trump, so you can listen to them yourself. Trump not paying taxes*? NYT article says 10 of 15 years leading up to 2017; he claimed at the debate that he paid millions in 2016 and 2017, but he doesn't seem inclined to prove it by releasing his taxes. Tape of Melania? Out on the internet.
3 out of 4 from Trump himself; and he resists settling the other one.
*Yes, I mean US income taxes in 10 out of 15 years. Trump can easily clear it up by releasing his tax returns like every other modern president or presidential candidate.
1. John McCain was a loser, good for Trump...before you start mouthing about his 'service' do yourself a favor and Google the 1990 "Truth Bill", the second iteration a year later, and then the bill McCain introduced. Then check on his modification of the 1995 Missing Service Personnel Act.
2. So Trump paid around 4 million in taxes...why should I give a fuck if $750 is classified as 'income' tax instead of 'capital gains' or even 'Fuck the IRS" tax...it all went to the same place and he paid it.
3. If you listen to the whole Melania tape, she was trying to get children reunited with their families and was bitching that the 'law' wouldn't just let them do it, that nobody had harassed Obama about it when he was doing it, and the fact that she was having to deal with the official WH Christmas celebration instead of fixing the family separation...are you saying she was wrong to be more concerned about the families??*
4. Woodward's tapes are a 'whatever' moment. Anyone involved with disaster management experience who is being honest will tell you that the absolute first thing you do in that situation is prevent a panic among the general population. (Paper towels/Toilet paper ring any bells?) He also shut down travel from the source area .(but hey...Waaayciist) ...and imagine that. A fucking respiratory virus is airborne?? Holy shit, someone call Guiness Book...
*The only thing Melania is guilty of is caring about children and using the same language I do...I can respect both of those.
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 08:49:29 PM
Fair enough; I should say "no US income taxes in 10 of 15 years, and $750 in each of 2016 and 2017". (The more alarming news in that story seems to be the amounts he owes to unknown parties, a big red flag for those who give security clearances.)
But ... did Shasarak just endorse a New York Times article as a reliable source of information? Outing yourself as a latte-sipping elitist, I see. They don't cotton to that kind of thing around here.
Dogpile on Shasarak, everyone!
No red flag. He had to divulge that info in order to even receive a security clearance.
...as far as the NYT...they are the original source so all the info is from them and they still had to dance around their own facts and gin a juicy headline to even get an actual attack in...
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 08:45:38 PM
If the conspiracy theory is that they disappear from the news cycle, each has been overtaken by subsequent things. COVID-19 diagnosis pretty much overshadowed them all in the news feeds.
If you mean the specifics I list, all of these things were widely reported and never (entirely) rebutted. The suckers and losers one? Trump denied calling McCain a loser, except he retweeted a reference to him saying that, and there's video of him doing so. Woodward's tapes? All over the internet, and no denials that they are in fact Trump, so you can listen to them yourself. Trump not paying taxes*? NYT article says 10 of 15 years leading up to 2017; he claimed at the debate that he paid millions in 2016 and 2017, but he doesn't seem inclined to prove it by releasing his taxes. Tape of Melania? Out on the internet.
3 out of 4 from Trump himself; and he resists settling the other one.
*Yes, I mean US income taxes in 10 out of 15 years. Trump can easily clear it up by releasing his tax returns like every other modern president or presidential candidate.
Is this an intentional softball?
You claim Trump called out the military and then walk it back to just McCain when challenged.
You claim Trump didn't pay taxes and then walk it back to his tax returns when challenged.
Melania is the kind of Hollywood gossip that I really don't give a shit about.
The Woodward tapes I'm not as familiar with, so I'll let someone else opine about that.
*Oh, the Woodward tape was the one where Trump was talking about preventing a panic? Yeah. Just remember the Dems had the same level of briefings and didn't do diddly fucking squat. They were too busy trying to impeach Trump to care two shits about a looming pandemic. Nobody knew how this was going to go down at the time, and hindsight is 20/20.
So yeah, I'm glad you popped your head back in to repeat some media rumor mill garbage and pretend you're the voice of reason. If anything, it's amusing to watch you crash and burn.
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 08:45:38 PM
*Yes, I mean US income taxes in 10 out of 15 years. Trump can easily clear it up by releasing his tax returns like every other modern president or presidential candidate.
Since when has someone using Obama Taxes been a problem?
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 08:49:29 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on October 04, 2020, 06:36:00 PM
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 05:19:58 PM
Since COVID-19 doesn't give up as quickly as human beings, I expect this will continue as the major topic of the rest of the campaign. Unlike calling members of the military suckers and losers, Woodward's tapes (ha, he almost used presidential tapes to bring down a Republican president early and late in his career), Trump not paying taxes, debate debacle, Melania's attacks on Christmas and separated children - not to mention all the things I've forgotten in just the past few weeks.
I thought that the new york times article said that Trump paid over 4 million in taxes? Too far past the headline to read?
Fair enough; I should say "no US income taxes in 10 of 15 years, and $750 in each of 2016 and 2017". (The more alarming news in that story seems to be the amounts he owes to unknown parties, a big red flag for those who give security clearances.)
But ... did Shasarak just endorse a New York Times article as a reliable source of information? Outing yourself as a latte-sipping elitist, I see. They don't cotton to that kind of thing around here.
Dogpile on Shasarak, everyone!
Shit I forgot that only Pat gives sources.
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 04, 2020, 09:47:44 PM
He had to divulge that info in order to even receive a security clearance.
The President does not receive a security clearance. He simply has access to all the nation's secrets. The National Security Act does not and, constitutionally, could not require the President to receive a clearance. The only exception to this is the Census data.
This President, and no other President before him, has ever had to submit any info to receive a security clearance in their role as President. (I'm sure George H.W. Bush did in his prior career as Director of the CIA.)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 04, 2020, 09:47:54 PM
*Oh, the Woodward tape was the one where Trump was talking about preventing a panic? Yeah. Just remember the Dems had the same level of briefings and didn't do diddly fucking squat. They were too busy trying to impeach Trump to care two shits about a looming pandemic. Nobody knew how this was going to go down at the time, and hindsight is 20/20.
Actually, we don't know that they did. The White House had cut off intelligence briefings to the Congress around the same time as the original whistleblower report as part of the tit-for-tat that was happening back then (Oct/Nov of 19). While some intelligence is required to be briefed to Congress by statute, there was quite a bit of that which the President had ordered the National Security Council to stop reporting to Congress. Several subpoenas were issued for it and ended up in court, but the Democrats did not want to wait for the SCOTUS to rule on it.
The House and Senate might have received those briefings, but we have no way of knowing that currently and have probable cause to believe they may not have.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 04, 2020, 10:25:00 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 04, 2020, 09:47:44 PM
He had to divulge that info in order to even receive a security clearance.
The President does not receive a security clearance. He simply has access to all the nation's secrets. The National Security Act does not and, constitutionally, could not require the President to receive a clearance. The only exception to this is the Census data.
This President, and no other President before him, has ever had to submit any info to receive a security clearance in their role as President. (I'm sure George H.W. Bush did in his prior career as Director of the CIA.)
I'll give you a technically true on self-divulge...but the information is known to counter-intel at some level because it is part of his tax record and if there was anything it would have shown up during their investigation leading to the impeachment.
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 04, 2020, 10:49:33 PM
I'll give you a technically true on self-divulge...but the information is known to counter-intel at some level because it is part of his tax record and if there was anything it would have shown up during their investigation leading to the impeachment.
Why? Counter-intelligence can't just look at someone's taxes. They have to get a very specific subpoena, and even then can only look at very limited tax records. They do not just have access to anyone's tax records, and attempting to subpoena the President's tax records from within the administration would get attention from the Attorney General himself.
The Mueller investigation was the only one that would have had a reason to look at the President's tax records and the investigation elected not to make the attempt, over the objection of some senior members of the investigative staff, according to recent memoirs. Charitably, one could assume that Robert Mueller, or another senior, strictly constructed his mandate and decided that would be outside the scope of his investigative powers (this is what he claims). Less charitably, some on the staff believe it was because they feared being fired if they tried and didn't want investigation to end like that.
All that aside: I find it fascinating how much the public does not understand how the National Security apparatus works. How much data they assume the national security apparatus has and what type of data it is. This leads to a weird situation where the US public is both mad at the counter-intelligence community for collecting types of data which it actually doesn't, while giving them a complete pass for the types of data it DOES collect that they should be horrified about. We are a country of lovely contradictions.
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 05:19:58 PM
I check in here just to see what craziness you guys are up to. Still mostly waiting for some actual election commentary rather than the usual railing against an invented reality. Ravenswing has opened the door to actual reality, so I guess I'll make a rare post.
Both parties have rules in place to replace nominees who are unable to continue; the article at https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2020 (https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2020) seems to agree with everything else I've seen. Given that voting with the current ticket is already going, I suspect either party would continue with the deceased candidate and have the electors for that party determine who actually gets it, rather than risk splitting their general election votes between dead candidate and replacement candidate. (In 2000, Mel Carnahan won a Senate election despite being dead.)
I wonder why anyone would seek out commentary from the most extreme members of the other end of the political spectrum. (OK, I spend a little time here, but I would be surprised if anyone here is even close to the most extreme end of the right wing.)
The people on the left that I read have mostly offered sympathy (OK, Kos wants Trump to live so he can lose the election, be prosecuted and imprisoned, and see the ruin of his personal finances) or remained studiously neutral. In these sorts of situations, the right wing dredges up some obscure nobody to tar all Democrats, while it's major Republicans who advance cruel attacks and extreme conspiracy theories. A very common twitter post the last few days is Trump's mockery of Hillary Clinton's pneumonia, which coincidentally had its four year anniversary on Friday; and of course there's always a Trump tweet. While the Biden campaign has suspended negative advertising, the Trump campaign is still attacking Biden for wearing a mask too much and having smaller events. (Interestingly, at least one of the apostate Republicans who founded the Lincoln Project advocates keeping up the negative ads.)
Trump's doctor (medical or spin?) has admitted that he misrepresented things yesterday to be "upbeat"; nobody still in the administration has much credibility at this point, which is good for blunting any October surprises they may spring. Like their tax returns, the broad facts of a Presidential candidate's health should be known to the public. They knew enough from Hope Hicks' test result that Trump should never have gone to a buffet dinner maskless fundraiser on Thursday, even if Trump himself tested positive no earlier than the claimed timeline.
Since COVID-19 doesn't give up as quickly as human beings, I expect this will continue as the major topic of the rest of the campaign. Unlike calling members of the military suckers and losers, Woodward's tapes (ha, he almost used presidential tapes to bring down a Republican president early and late in his career), Trump not paying taxes, debate debacle, Melania's attacks on Christmas and separated children - not to mention all the things I've forgotten in just the past few weeks.
I know that it is you, rawma, so you don't understand the nuances of most things in the world, but Trump has donated most of his presidential salary to charities which does significantly offset the amount of taxes that he owes for working as President.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/11/fact-check-donald-trump-donates-salary-but-he-still-makes-money/5410134002/
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 08:46:54 PM
If it goes to the House, the Republicans might win - each state gets one vote for its entire delegation (presumably no vote if it's evenly split?) and the Republicans control 26 state delegations even though the Democrats have a majority overall. But the Democrats with the Speaker position might be able to block the vote procedurally; who knows? More reasonably, the Democrats are trying to flip state delegation control to avoid losing a House vote.
Good point, I forgot about that. For a fairly short document, the Constitution has a lot of obscure arcana that almost never comes up. One additional note: The 26 state majority Republicans hold is unlikely to change in the November election. The contested seats won't flip any of the state delegations.
While the 12th Amendment says the House must choose "immediately," nothing actually defines immediately. It's entirely possible to stall through procedural votes until a new Congress is in. If something tectonic happened to the House this election, then the Republicans could then seek to stall in the opposite direction until Pence becomes President by default in March.
Of course, this would all wind up in the courts because these particular provisions have never been litigated before. (Does "immediately" in the 12th Amendment mean the vote must be cast immediately, ignoring the House's usual rules, or do the House rules of procedure apply and thus the immediately only means you have to start the process immediately?) By the time the Courts resolve such an issue, if they do at all, it may already be fiat accompli.
That assumes though that any swing state which decides to contest the outcome of the election doesn't simply vote to cast all their Electors in a particular way, regardless of what the current outcome says, "because the veracity is in doubt." While on the face of it that would seem to run afoul of Chiafolo v. Washington, it doesn't because the exact issue of, "what happens if the vote itself is in doubt?" has not been litigated.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 04, 2020, 09:47:54 PM
You claim Trump called out the military and then walk it back to just McCain when challenged.
You claim Trump didn't pay taxes and then walk it back to his tax returns when challenged.
Melania is the kind of Hollywood gossip that I really don't give a shit about.
The Woodward tapes I'm not as familiar with, so I'll let someone else opine about that.
You might notice that I originally claimed only that they were major topics in the campaign; that much is certainly true (although the Melania one never really got far as a major topic because of COVID-19 rampaging through the White House; it would have brought forward the child separation policy again, as Melania falsely claimed in the tape that Obama did it first - Politifact said that was False when Donald Trump claimed it). I am still trying to fathom where you think the conspiracy theory is, if some portion is easily verified; I still haven't gotten any response on that.
So there's enough evidence, mostly from videos and audio tapes, that some portion of each is true, and the remainder is therefore a legitimate issue; you'll notice that Chris Wallace (Fox News, y'know) asked Trump point blank about his income taxes. I'm not interested in a long back-and-forth where I give references from The Atlantic, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, statements by elected officials, Trump relatives and Trump administration members, and you reference Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the Gateway Pundit.
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 04, 2020, 08:48:12 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on October 04, 2020, 04:17:44 PM
Injecting bleach is pretty much as fake as fake news can be.
A quick check of Politifact would have pointed that out, but that site is probably too far to the right for him.
...although I am inclined to think anyone who even considers injecting themselves with bleach probably should...hopefully before they breed
"And then I see the
disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by
injection inside or almost a cleaning..." - Donald J. Trump, very stable genius (with added
bold formatting)
OK, maybe he thought you could inject ultraviolet light, and maybe the disinfectant in question was isopropyl alcohol.
It's probably true that many of the calls to Poison Control about bleach were fakes.
Probably.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 04, 2020, 09:52:57 PM
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 08:45:38 PM
*Yes, I mean US income taxes in 10 out of 15 years. Trump can easily clear it up by releasing his tax returns like every other modern president or presidential candidate.
Since when has someone using Obama Taxes been a problem?
You're going to have to translate that from RightWingEchoChamberese or whatever to something with meaning in reality; what are "Obama Taxes" and how did Trump use them? You might have noticed that Obama was only president during any part of nine of those years, and two of those had Trump income tax payments of $750. What's your excuse for the years preceding Obama - time travel?
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 08:34:55 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 04, 2020, 08:48:12 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on October 04, 2020, 04:17:44 PM
Injecting bleach is pretty much as fake as fake news can be.
A quick check of Politifact would have pointed that out, but that site is probably too far to the right for him.
...although I am inclined to think anyone who even considers injecting themselves with bleach probably should...hopefully before they breed
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning..." - Donald J. Trump, very stable genius (with added bold formatting)
OK, maybe he thought you could inject ultraviolet light, and maybe the disinfectant in question was isopropyl alcohol.
It's probably true that many of the calls to Poison Control about bleach were fakes. Probably.
Could you give me the quote where he tells you to inject bleach?
I know it breaks your rule of providing sources so I will understand if you choose not to....
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 08:36:20 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on October 04, 2020, 09:52:57 PM
Quote from: rawma on October 04, 2020, 08:45:38 PM
*Yes, I mean US income taxes in 10 out of 15 years. Trump can easily clear it up by releasing his tax returns like every other modern president or presidential candidate.
Since when has someone using Obama Taxes been a problem?
You're going to have to translate that from RightWingEchoChamberese or whatever to something with meaning in reality; what are "Obama Taxes" and how did Trump use them? You might have noticed that Obama was only president during any part of nine of those years, and two of those had Trump income tax payments of $750. What's your excuse for the years preceding Obama - time travel?
Obama gave real estate developers a tax break to develop real estate and Trump is a real estate developer who took Obama real estate tax breaks.
If you dont like people taking Obama tax breaks then maybe you could take that up with Obama?
He is probably on Twitter somewhere, I am sure he will be fascinated.
Quote from: jeff37923 on October 05, 2020, 07:53:23 AM
I know that it is you, rawma, so you don't understand the nuances of most things in the world, but Trump has donated most of his presidential salary to charities which does significantly offset the amount of taxes that he owes for working as President.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/11/fact-check-donald-trump-donates-salary-but-he-still-makes-money/5410134002/
The president gets paid $400,000 per year; Donald Trump had to shut down the Trump Foundation and pay $2,000,000 because of illegally using charitable funds for political purposes. I certainly approve of reducing his total income by legitimate charitable contributions, if any can be found. If he were really a billionaire, $400,000 either way wouldn't matter (and would have had no effect before 2017 anyway).
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 04, 2020, 10:25:00 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 04, 2020, 09:47:44 PM
He had to divulge that info in order to even receive a security clearance.
The President does not receive a security clearance. He simply has access to all the nation's secrets. The National Security Act does not and, constitutionally, could not require the President to receive a clearance. The only exception to this is the Census data.
This President, and no other President before him, has ever had to submit any info to receive a security clearance in their role as President. (I'm sure George H.W. Bush did in his prior career as Director of the CIA.)
The "security clearance" for the President is that granted by a
majority of voters plurality of voters majority of electoral votes usually directed by the voters, which is why modern presidential candidates should and with rare exceptions do provide their recent tax returns.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 05, 2020, 12:48:23 AM
All that aside: I find it fascinating how much the public does not understand how the National Security apparatus works. How much data they assume the national security apparatus has and what type of data it is. This leads to a weird situation where the US public is both mad at the counter-intelligence community for collecting types of data which it actually doesn't, while giving them a complete pass for the types of data it DOES collect that they should be horrified about. We are a country of lovely contradictions.
At the risk of harming Tanin Wulf's reputation by association with me, these are all good posts.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 05, 2020, 09:00:21 AM
While the 12th Amendment says the House must choose "immediately," nothing actually defines immediately. It's entirely possible to stall through procedural votes until a new Congress is in. If something tectonic happened to the House this election, then the Republicans could then seek to stall in the opposite direction until Pence becomes President by default in March.
Of course, this would all wind up in the courts because these particular provisions have never been litigated before. (Does "immediately" in the 12th Amendment mean the vote must be cast immediately, ignoring the House's usual rules, or do the House rules of procedure apply and thus the immediately only means you have to start the process immediately?) By the time the Courts resolve such an issue, if they do at all, it may already be fiat accompli.
That assumes though that any swing state which decides to contest the outcome of the election doesn't simply vote to cast all their Electors in a particular way, regardless of what the current outcome says, "because the veracity is in doubt." While on the face of it that would seem to run afoul of Chiafolo v. Washington, it doesn't because the exact issue of, "what happens if the vote itself is in doubt?" has not been litigated.
The "winner takes all" approach, whether at the state level or even the congressional district level, seems to be the source of a lot of issues. It encourages voter turnout to sag in all but the closest places (no point if you're well in the minority, someone else will put your side over the top if you're in the majority); encourages campaigns to focus on a small number of states; increases the chance that an election outcome will hinge on a very small number of votes (Florida in 2000). The electoral college serves no actual function but to complicate the process and maybe rarely create a disaster; its only remaining function is to give greater weight to small states. It would be much better to weight small states higher and then go by the weighted popular vote; states with high turnout would get more of a say, and every state would matter a bit. Maybe the Senate alone gives small states enough voice. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is one way of trying to undo the electoral college, but by its name alone it's already unconstitutional unless Congress approves (maybe in advance?).
Quote from: Shasarak on October 05, 2020, 08:41:00 PM
Could you give me the quote where he tells you to inject bleach?
I know it breaks your rule of providing sources so I will understand if you choose not to....
April 23 coronavirus task force press conference; I quoted it above, and you can find it easily on the White House website:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/
What disinfectant do you think he was referencing? That Trump insisted the next day that he was being sarcastic should tell you you're on the wrong talking point. "He said
disinfectant], not
bleach" is really a stupid defense.
I love how all the people who can't possibly fathom the basic 4th grade math to understand the real CoronaChan death rate suddenly have become tax experts far beyond the CPAs of the IRS.
Larry Correia (CPA turned Nerd Author) broke down the Trump tax nonsense
https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/09/28/no-you-idiots-thats-not-how-taxes-work-an-accountants-guide-to-why-you-are-a-gullible-moron/ (https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/09/28/no-you-idiots-thats-not-how-taxes-work-an-accountants-guide-to-why-you-are-a-gullible-moron/)
TL;DR...Trump's accountants are top dollar and the IRS goons are maximum spaz, so if any tax problems existed, the IRS auditors would have berserked years ago. Also, tax loopholes exist because of decades of bipartisan Congress decisions...and Dementia JoJo has been pulling those levers for 47 years!
Quote from: Shasarak on October 05, 2020, 08:46:36 PM
Obama gave real estate developers a tax break to develop real estate and Trump is a real estate developer who took Obama real estate tax breaks.
Such tax breaks have existed for decades, and were used by Trump before Obama was president; so you are going with the time travel thing. ::)
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 08:34:55 PMOK, maybe he thought you could inject ultraviolet light
You can. Light therapy as disinfectant isn't new.
From 2017 "Ultraviolet Irradiation of Blood: "The Cure That Time Forgot"?"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122858/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122858/)
https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/global-pandemic-consortium-supports-trump-s-call-for-investigation-of-ultraviolet-light-as-a-potential-treatment-for-covid-19/ (https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/global-pandemic-consortium-supports-trump-s-call-for-investigation-of-ultraviolet-light-as-a-potential-treatment-for-covid-19/)
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 08:34:55 PMIt's probably true that many of the calls to Poison Control about bleach were fakes.
I hope not!!!
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 09:02:50 PM
The "security clearance" for the President is that granted by a majority of voters plurality of voters majority of electoral votes usually directed by the voters, which is why modern presidential candidates should and with rare exceptions do provide their recent tax returns.
I agree, but this is also an area where the solution should be, "since custom has failed us, we should now make a law." Congress should act if we've decided this is important to us as a nation.
QuoteThe National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is one way of trying to undo the electoral college, but by its name alone it's already unconstitutional unless Congress approves (maybe in advance?).
Ehh... you might be surprised. The Consent of Congress can be inferred from Congress simply not acting to oppose it. (Cf. Virginia v. West Virginia, 1871.) It doesn't actually have to be an affirmative consent. However, this one is probably so core, so sacred to the American process that the Supreme Court would look at its recent ruling in Chiafalo v. Washington and go, "oh hell no," and thus require affirmative consent from the Congress. (This would also be backed by Virginia v. Tennessee, where the court held that only an interstate compact "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" actually requires Congress' approval.)
You'd then also get into weird territory like, "what happens if the Supreme Court overturns the compact?" What's to stop the electors from just voting the way the State told them to anyway?
This and the 2016 election cycle are demonstrating our system has some fundamental flaws we had never considered (because they had never been important before now). Those flaws are fracturing us as a society and people (especially here, just as much as the leftists they claim to hate) because we've realized they might be ways to game the system, a system that both sides feel treats them unfairly because of 'this one weird trick that politicians hate and don't want you to know about' (TM).
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 09:58:32 PM
I hope not!!!
Do you really hate your fellow American that much?
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 09:19:07 PM
Such tax breaks have existed for decades, and were used by Trump before Obama was president; so you are going with the time travel thing. ::)
This is one of those things that both sides are using when it's advantageous to their argument at the expense of truth.
The simple fact is that yes, Obama did sign into law several tax breaks that the current President has used (despite how, for 8 years, we Conservatives liked to beat the drum about how Obama was raising our taxes). However, the other side of that is who made that tax law? A Republican Congress and the bill was authored by a Michigan Republican.
So, as with most things in politics, both sides are to blame and nobody's really driving the car.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 09:17:22 PM
TL;DR...Trump's accountants are top dollar and the IRS goons are maximum spaz, so if any tax problems existed, the IRS auditors would have berserked years ago.
...what do you think a 10 year audit is? It's the IRS going berserk over complicated tax problems. (Note that "tax problem" does not mean the President did anything wrong. You can have problems with your taxes and have done nothing criminal. So don't misread that.)
And that's not harassment, that's a sign of a tax code that's so convoluted that the people who administer it cannot figure out what the hell it says, and how they're supposed to go about showing intent or lack of intent.
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 09:02:50 PM
The electoral college serves no actual function but to complicate the process and maybe rarely create a disaster; its only remaining function is to give greater weight to small states.
Not true. One additional function of the electoral college is to make recounts easier. The 2000 election, for instance, came down to a few hundred votes. But they only had to do recounts in 4 Florida counties, because the results in all the other states and counties were either settled, or irrelevant. If it was a straight popular national election and two candidates came within 537 votes, then you'd have to recount every vote cast in every county and in every state, because a discrepancy anywhere could swing the entire election. That would add a huge amount of overhead, and encourage lots of fraud.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 05, 2020, 08:41:00 PM
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 08:34:55 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 04, 2020, 08:48:12 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on October 04, 2020, 04:17:44 PM
Injecting bleach is pretty much as fake as fake news can be.
A quick check of Politifact would have pointed that out, but that site is probably too far to the right for him.
...although I am inclined to think anyone who even considers injecting themselves with bleach probably should...hopefully before they breed
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning..." - Donald J. Trump, very stable genius (with added bold formatting)
OK, maybe he thought you could inject ultraviolet light, and maybe the disinfectant in question was isopropyl alcohol.
It's probably true that many of the calls to Poison Control about bleach were fakes. Probably.
Could you give me the quote where he tells you to inject bleach?
I know it breaks your rule of providing sources so I will understand if you choose not to....
The only person I remember actually saying "inject bleach" was Nancy Pelosi. And so even if warning against it, she's the one who put the idea in people's heads.
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 04, 2020, 09:47:54 PM
You claim Trump called out the military and then walk it back to just McCain when challenged.
You claim Trump didn't pay taxes and then walk it back to his tax returns when challenged.
Melania is the kind of Hollywood gossip that I really don't give a shit about.
The Woodward tapes I'm not as familiar with, so I'll let someone else opine about that.
You might notice that I originally claimed only that they were major topics in the campaign; that much is certainly true (although the Melania one never really got far as a major topic because of COVID-19 rampaging through the White House; it would have brought forward the child separation policy again, as Melania falsely claimed in the tape that Obama did it first - Politifact said that was False when Donald Trump claimed it). I am still trying to fathom where you think the conspiracy theory is, if some portion is easily verified; I still haven't gotten any response on that.
You're the one repeating left wing echo chamber talking points and then waffling when people point out you're full of shit. Maybe this time Trump's tax returns will show he's been in Putin's pocket the whole time, just like all the other times they found a big fat nothingburger. :D
QuoteSo there's enough evidence, mostly from videos and audio tapes, that some portion of each is true, and the remainder is therefore a legitimate issue; you'll notice that Chris Wallace (Fox News, y'know) asked Trump point blank about his income taxes. I'm not interested in a long back-and-forth where I give references from The Atlantic, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, statements by elected officials, Trump relatives and Trump administration members, and you reference Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the Gateway Pundit.
"Some portion". I need some maple syrup for all this waffling.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 05, 2020, 10:03:04 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 09:58:32 PM
I hope not!!!
Do you really hate your fellow American that much?
Anyone dumb enough to drink bleach (or eat Tide Pods) won't be missed.
The gene pool is already murky enough.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 05, 2020, 10:08:26 PM...what do you think a 10 year audit is?
A witch hunt.
Imagine the news if Saint Obama was under the same scrutiny!
Waaaaaaaycisms!
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 05, 2020, 10:08:26 PM(Note that "tax problem" does not mean the President did anything wrong. You can have problems with your taxes and have done nothing criminal. So don't misread that.)
Larry Corriea's article discussed that issue. Apparently, there was a study done where 100 different accounting firms of various price points did the fictional taxes of a single family and came up with 100 different returns. Why? There are so many possible 99% LEGAL interpretations of the tax code.
So, thanks to decades of convoluted nonsense shoved into the tax code BY BOTH PARTIES, we have a situation where the MSM can easily do a partisan hit job by simply interpreting the code as they like because the code's intricacies have gone so far beyond the 6th grade reading level of the average citizen.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 05, 2020, 10:08:26 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 09:17:22 PM
TL;DR...Trump's accountants are top dollar and the IRS goons are maximum spaz, so if any tax problems existed, the IRS auditors would have berserked years ago.
...what do you think a 10 year audit is? It's the IRS going berserk over complicated tax problems. (Note that "tax problem" does not mean the President did anything wrong. You can have problems with your taxes and have done nothing criminal. So don't misread that.)
And that's not harassment, that's a sign of a tax code that's so convoluted that the people who administer it cannot figure out what the hell it says, and how they're supposed to go about showing intent or lack of intent.
If you think that's bad, imagine how much fun it is to try and enforce it within a org where the pressure is to -close- cases. Not necessarily to 'win', but to just close them.
Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2020, 10:16:05 PM
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 09:02:50 PM
The electoral college serves no actual function but to complicate the process and maybe rarely create a disaster; its only remaining function is to give greater weight to small states.
Not true. One additional function of the electoral college is to make recounts easier. The 2000 election, for instance, came down to a few hundred votes. But they only had to do recounts in 4 Florida counties, because the results in all the other states and counties were either settled, or irrelevant. If it was a straight popular national election and two candidates came within 537 votes, then you'd have to recount every vote cast in every county and in every state, because a discrepancy anywhere could swing the entire election. That would add a huge amount of overhead, and encourage lots of fraud.
This is not true at all. Only in Maine and Nebraska are electors picked by Congressional districts (and not counties regardless). All other States pick electors by the total popular vote. Read Bush v. Gore. The court ruled that the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Trump has apparently "dominated" the Wuhan flu and totally kicked its ass.
Proving face diapers are for pussies.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 05, 2020, 10:52:00 PM
The only person I remember actually saying "inject bleach" was Nancy Pelosi. And so even if warning against it, she's the one who put the idea in people's heads.
It's blatantly obvious to me that Trump was ASKING Bill Bryan if it were feasible to use UV and disinfectants internally:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that too. It sounds interesting.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We'll get to the right folks who could.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 06, 2020, 08:16:41 AM
If you think that's bad, imagine how much fun it is to try and enforce it within a org where the pressure is to -close- cases. Not necessarily to 'win', but to just close them.
We had a similar problem in the Department of Defense, where the pressure was to do X when the sensible thing was to do Y. Perverse incentives abound.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 11:25:35 PM
Anyone dumb enough to drink bleach (or eat Tide Pods) won't be missed.
The gene pool is already murky enough.
...you didn't answer the question.
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 08:37:18 AM
This is not true at all. Only in Maine and Nebraska are electors picked by Congressional districts (and not counties regardless). All other States pick electors by the total popular vote. Read Bush v. Gore. The court ruled that the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause.
I don't agree with rawma's interpretation, but you've also committed a nonsequitor here. Having to only recount a few counties is not the same thing as having different standards of counting.
I can have a rule, and it stands under Bush v. Gore, where only counties where the tally was within 5% have to be recounted. As long as they all follow the same standard for what is a legitimate vote and what is cast aside on a technically, I don't violate the standard set in Bush v. Gore.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 05, 2020, 10:06:14 PM
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 09:19:07 PM
Such tax breaks have existed for decades, and were used by Trump before Obama was president; so you are going with the time travel thing. ::)
This is one of those things that both sides are using when it's advantageous to their argument at the expense of truth.
The simple fact is that yes, Obama did sign into law several tax breaks that the current President has used (despite how, for 8 years, we Conservatives liked to beat the drum about how Obama was raising our taxes). However, the other side of that is who made that tax law? A Republican Congress and the bill was authored by a Michigan Republican.
So, as with most things in politics, both sides are to blame and nobody's really driving the car.
The question is: How is this Trump's fault? Because both-side-isms aside, the entire reason why this is even being discussed is because ONE side that's frothing at the mouth to hang Trump with anything that sticks is bringing it up to pretend that Trump using tax exceptions that existed years before he even ran for president is both, a nefarious and unthinkable act, as well as squarely on Trump's shoulders, like he wrote the laws just to give himself tax breaks.
And yes, both sides are garbage, and the two political parties have been corrupt and screwing over the American public for decades. But in the current political climate there are two sides that transcend political affiliation. One is normal regular people with varying degrees of understanding and investment on the political process, but at least a modicum of common sense to see through some of the bullshit or at least get a sense that something is "off", and the other one is frothing at the mouth lunatics obsessed with Trump.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 11:39:02 PM
A witch hunt.
Or it's a sign that his taxes are that incredibly complicated since when it started was well before he entered the political stage. But hey, if you want to engage in conspiracy theories that somehow the IRS knew he'd be the President and thus was witch hunting him back in 2010... go ahead.
QuoteImagine the news if Saint Obama was under the same scrutiny!
Well... actually... 33 people in his administration DID come under scrutiny for much the same thing. Does no one remember Timothy Geithner? Or is it just that when he said, "my taxes are complicated, I forgot to pay that part. I've paid it now," it was wrong, but when Trump says something similar it's true?
QuoteSo, thanks to decades of convoluted nonsense shoved into the tax code BY BOTH PARTIES, we have a situation where the MSM can easily do a partisan hit job by simply interpreting the code as they like because the code's intricacies have gone so far beyond the 6th grade reading level of the average citizen.
I agree. It's a shame that happened to Geithner... wait... oh, did you mean JUST Trump?
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 06, 2020, 10:19:28 AM
The question is: How is this Trump's fault?
Outside of potentially misleading (note the word choice, BOTH words) claim that it was just Obama's tax provision, I didn't say anything was or was not his fault. But as a rhetorical question, I take your point.
QuoteAnd yes, both sides are garbage, and the two political parties have been corrupt and screwing over the American public for decades. But in the current political climate there are two sides that transcend political affiliation. One is normal regular people with varying degrees of understanding and investment on the political process, but at least a modicum of common sense to see through some of the bullshit or at least get a sense that something is "off", and the other one is frothing at the mouth lunatics obsessed with Trump.
Then be the change you want to see: start with the assumption that there COULD be something nefarious hidden in there and that's why he doesn't want you to see his tax returns. That is a plausible explanation (more plausible than the explanations the President has given). THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S TRUE.
Have a modicum of common sense and see that if you don't hold our own side accountable, who is more likely to get away with lying to you? The person you suspect of lying to you (the MSM, in your case) all the time, or the person whispering what you want to hear in your ear all the time?
Nothing in that statement should be read as saying the President did this or that. It's a warning that should hold true no matter who you are. Have the common sense you're asking for others to and be at peace rather than frothing in obsession over those who froth in obsession over the President.
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 08:37:18 AM
Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2020, 10:16:05 PM
Quote from: rawma on October 05, 2020, 09:02:50 PM
The electoral college serves no actual function but to complicate the process and maybe rarely create a disaster; its only remaining function is to give greater weight to small states.
Not true. One additional function of the electoral college is to make recounts easier. The 2000 election, for instance, came down to a few hundred votes. But they only had to do recounts in 4 Florida counties, because the results in all the other states and counties were either settled, or irrelevant. If it was a straight popular national election and two candidates came within 537 votes, then you'd have to recount every vote cast in every county and in every state, because a discrepancy anywhere could swing the entire election. That would add a huge amount of overhead, and encourage lots of fraud.
This is not true at all. Only in Maine and Nebraska are electors picked by Congressional districts (and not counties regardless). All other States pick electors by the total popular vote. Read Bush v. Gore. The court ruled that the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause.
I wasn't familiar with that ruling, so I'm clearly out of date. But you're also wrong. Nobody except you mentioned districts. I only referred to the 4 counties in Florida where Gore requested a recount during the 2000 election.
And the more general principle still stands. With a close national popular vote, you might need to recount 130 million ballots. If only Florida is in dispute, that's reduced to 9 million ballots, and from a practical standpoint could be much less (cf. the 4 counties). There's a real practical advantage to blocking votes, though statewide groupings are a grosser than ideal division.
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 08:51:14 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 05, 2020, 10:52:00 PM
The only person I remember actually saying "inject bleach" was Nancy Pelosi. And so even if warning against it, she's the one who put the idea in people's heads.
It's blatantly obvious to me that Trump was ASKING Bill Bryan if it were feasible to use UV and disinfectants internally:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that too. It sounds interesting.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We'll get to the right folks who could.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
Quite right. Thanks for posting the actual discussion. He sounds like a layman, which he is on this subject. Hell, if someone told me that doctors were using UV light and some kind of disinfectant interally, to treat an infection, I'd have just gone, "Well, neat!"
As usual, the media spin against Trump is built on a rickety scaffold of misinterpretations.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2020, 11:13:57 AM
Quite right. Thanks for posting the actual discussion. He sounds like a layman, which he is on this subject. Hell, if someone told me that doctors were using UV light and some kind of disinfectant interally, to treat an infection, I'd have just gone, "Well, neat!"
As usual, the media spin against Trump is built on a rickety scaffold of misinterpretations.
Trump rambles. He brainstorms out loud. He speaks off the cuff. He talks about shit he doesn't know anything about.
And the media treats every off-the cuff rambling brainstorm on a random topic as a serious policy proposal.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2020, 11:13:57 AM
Quite right. Thanks for posting the actual discussion. He sounds like a layman, which he is on this subject. Hell, if someone told me that doctors were using UV light and some kind of disinfectant interally, to treat an infection, I'd have just gone, "Well, neat!"
As usual, the media spin against Trump is built on a rickety scaffold of misinterpretations.
Go watch the whole news conference again. It was off the cuff, but he wasn't talking about UV light as the injection. He even then tried to walk it back the next day by saying he was being sarcastic about injecting disinfectants. Claiming that he meant the UV light (or irradiated light treatment, which is not what the doctors were talking about there at all, and that is obvious even to the layman) was to be injected shows a lack of knowledge of the incident. Not even the President claimed that's what he was saying.
Watch the whole thing, body language and all, not just the text that carries no tone or context.
Did he say the two words "inject bleach" together? No. Did he suggest injecting disinfectants (which the layperson would reasonably believe to be cleaning agents like Lysol or Clorox)? Yes. Was he being sarcastic? Maybe, but if so he was bad at it because he sure sounded serious and hopeful and the doctor looked very confused.
(Double post)
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2020, 11:13:57 AM
Quite right. Thanks for posting the actual discussion. He sounds like a layman, which he is on this subject. Hell, if someone told me that doctors were using UV light and some kind of disinfectant interally, to treat an infection, I'd have just gone, "Well, neat!"
As usual, the media spin against Trump is built on a rickety scaffold of misinterpretations.
Go watch the whole news conference again. It was off the cuff, but he wasn't talking about UV light as the injection. He even then tried to walk it back the next day by saying he was being sarcastic about injecting disinfectants. Claiming that he meant the UV light (or irradiated light treatment, which is not what the doctors were talking about there at all, and that is obvious even to the layman) was to be injected shows a lack of knowledge of the incident. Not even the President claimed that's what he was saying.
Watch the whole thing, body language and all, not just the text that carries no tone or context.
Did he say the two words "inject bleach" together? No. Did he suggest injecting disinfectants (which the layperson would reasonably believe to be cleaning agents like Lysol or Clorox)? Yes. Was he being sarcastic? Maybe, but if so he was bad at it because he sure sounded serious and hopeful and the doctor looked very confused.
If you're basing your medical decisions on the President's body language and not the expert opinion of your doctor, you've got lots more problems than I can address here.
Trump made some incorrect speculations and then clumsily walked them back. He didn't tell people to "Inject Bleach" or "drink bleach", which was the headline afterwards.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20200713/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfectant-bleach-coronavirus-claims-reaction
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 10:02:04 AM
I can have a rule, and it stands under Bush v. Gore, where only counties where the tally was within 5% have to be recounted. As long as they all follow the same standard for what is a legitimate vote and what is cast aside on a technically, I don't violate the standard set in Bush v. Gore.
No actually it would violate Bush v. Gore, because the argument was the standard for recount had to be statewide, not by county. There is no State where Federal elections would be recounted in the manner you suggest.
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 12:43:52 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 10:02:04 AM
I can have a rule, and it stands under Bush v. Gore, where only counties where the tally was within 5% have to be recounted. As long as they all follow the same standard for what is a legitimate vote and what is cast aside on a technically, I don't violate the standard set in Bush v. Gore.
No actually it would violate Bush v. Gore, because the argument was the standard for recount had to be statewide, not by county. There is no State where Federal elections would be recounted in the manner you suggest.
Don't forget that Florida also requires (not recommends, REQUIRES) the Florida Secretary of State to certify the votes by a certain date. The law gives no wiggle room, but the Democrats cried to the Florida Supreme Court to give them a mulligan till SCOTUS slapped them down.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 06, 2020, 10:19:28 AM
The question is: How is this Trump's fault?
Outside of potentially misleading (note the word choice, BOTH words) claim that it was just Obama's tax provision, I didn't say anything was or was not his fault. But as a rhetorical question, I take your point.
Sure. I wasn't necessarily trying to imply you meant anything specific by it. Just using your comment as a springboard since you elaborated on rawma's comment on the issue.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 10:26:53 AM
QuoteAnd yes, both sides are garbage, and the two political parties have been corrupt and screwing over the American public for decades. But in the current political climate there are two sides that transcend political affiliation. One is normal regular people with varying degrees of understanding and investment on the political process, but at least a modicum of common sense to see through some of the bullshit or at least get a sense that something is "off", and the other one is frothing at the mouth lunatics obsessed with Trump.
Then be the change you want to see: start with the assumption that there COULD be something nefarious hidden in there and that's why he doesn't want you to see his tax returns. That is a plausible explanation (more plausible than the explanations the President has given). THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S TRUE.
Have a modicum of common sense and see that if you don't hold our own side accountable, who is more likely to get away with lying to you? The person you suspect of lying to you (the MSM, in your case) all the time, or the person whispering what you want to hear in your ear all the time?
Nothing in that statement should be read as saying the President did this or that. It's a warning that should hold true no matter who you are. Have the common sense you're asking for others to and be at peace rather than frothing in obsession over those who froth in obsession over the President.
Oh yeah. I don't doubt that there exists the possibility that there
could possibly (maybe?) be something nefarious hidden in the President's tax returns. I see him as kind of a sleazy businessman, so I wouldn't put it pass him. However, there is such a thing as the burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty. And while a guilty person might deny any wrongdoing so would an innocent person, so it doesn't really serve me to assume that anyone denying guilt must be lying, since that would make everyone a liar, even the people telling the truth.
But when a group of people has been consistently trying cling to any and all accusations and "Russia, Russia, Russia!" conspiracy nonsense in a desperate attempt to find something (anything!) that sticks to hang the President with, there comes a point where I will just roll my eyes and wait for the evidence. And by "evidence" I mean actual concrete "proof" rather than idle speculation from deranged people on the internet, obsessed with the man and trumpeting (pun!) out their "theories" as settled fact.
Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2020, 10:51:11 AM
And the more general principle still stands. With a close national popular vote, you might need to recount 130 million ballots. If only Florida is in dispute, that's reduced to 9 million ballots, and from a practical standpoint could be much less (cf. the 4 counties). There's a real practical advantage to blocking votes, though statewide groupings are a grosser than ideal division.
The original reason is still the best--that we are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. Though the side effect on restraining voter fraud you list is certainly a reason to admire the main reason even more.
In any case, the real answer to the states being too diverse in population to fit the original constitutional model is easily fixed with a constitutional amendment that has been often suggested: Change the electoral college to not be winner takes all in each state but have everyone use the Maine/Nebraska model. There, each congressional district gets an electoral vote and the state as a whole still get their two votes for regional interests. Only one thing really stands in the way of this solution--the democrats will never agree because they'd be slaughtered in presidential elections for a generation. This is how you know that their stated reason for wanting a change is not true.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2020, 12:07:19 PM
If you're basing your medical decisions on the President's body language and not the expert opinion of your doctor, you've got lots more problems than I can address here.
Ad hominem, irrelevant to the argument.
QuoteTrump made some incorrect speculations and then clumsily walked them back. He didn't tell people to "Inject Bleach" or "drink bleach", which was the headline afterwards.
Shifting the goalpost to cover up for your earlier claim being shown to be incorrect. Making it someone else's fault by showing a hysterical headline does not mean that your claim that it was about injecting UV is correct.
(EDIT: forgot the word is.)
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 06, 2020, 02:16:15 PM
The original reason is still the best--that we are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. Though the side effect on restraining voter fraud
The US would still be a constitutional republic with direct popular voting for the President, because either way the President is still a representative of the people. Direct democracy generally applies to things like ballot initiatives. It's not practical for general governance, because you can't manage a massive suite of organizations by having a vote every time one of the millions of staff have to make a decision. It wouldn't even be practical to have a popular vote on every bill that comes through Congress.
Fraud is a big potential issue in recounts. We have mechanisms in place to handle regular votes, but if there's a recount that's not a routine planned thing, it's basically an emergency where you have to mobilize and scale up quickly. That kind of situation is easier to exploit, so whatever flaws and potential for fraud that exist during a normal vote will only be amplified. And the larger the scale of the operation, the more opportunities there will be, and the harder it will be to ensure things go smoothly.
I think the biggest argument is: If two candidates are neck and neck, does it really matter which one wins? From a practical, immediate standpoint, yes. The results for the country may be very different, depending on who runs the country for the next four years. That's why it's such a partisan issue, because people are looking at the immediate reward of
their candidate winning. But from the standpoint of a constitutional republic? No, it doesn't matter whether the 51% or the 49% candidate wins. They both were chosen by almost exactly the same number of people, so either represents the people about equally. If the ground rules were known beforehand, and the election was fair, then the mechanism for choosing the top candidate in a close race isn't the existential threat to democracy that people who really really want their candidate to win this time think it is.
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 12:43:52 PM
No actually it would violate Bush v. Gore, because the argument was the standard for recount had to be statewide, not by county. There is no State where Federal elections would be recounted in the manner you suggest.
No, actually, it wouldn't. Read the opinion of the court again very closely. Bush v. Gore's due process complaint held that the FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAD ADDED RULES after the fact of what could and could not be counted (and that it was county-by-county instead of rules applying to the whole state), and thus violated due process. It does not speak to whether or not these same rules could have been added BEFORE the election IF they had applied STATE WIDE, as I supposed.
As for what I suggested: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few, can all do it that way in a Federal election. So can D.C. if I remember correctly (although there it's on a precinct by precinct basis). County canvassers are free to recount their county in a great number of states if that county is close to a tie. It doesn't happen much because, on the whole, it tends not to change elections.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 06, 2020, 01:59:20 PM
Sure. I wasn't necessarily trying to imply you meant anything specific by it. Just using your comment as a springboard since you elaborated on rawma's comment on the issue.
Understood and appreciated then. :)
QuoteOh yeah. I don't doubt that there exists the possibility that there could possibly (maybe?) be something nefarious hidden in the President's tax returns. I see him as kind of a sleazy businessman, so I wouldn't put it pass him. However, there is such a thing as the burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty.
So there is a common misconception about what is the burden of proof and when it is applied. Innocent until proven guilty is a bedrock of our legal system, but most folks trip up on the burden of proof. I don't have to prove someone is guilty before an investigation begins. I have to prove there's enough reasonable suspicion to open an investigation. That burden of proof is very, VERY low. It's above a scintilla, but definitely less than a preponderance of the evidence.
And that makes sense, if you think about it in the abstract. If I am expected to prove my entire case before I can go to discovery and get the documents I need, how would I ever be able to prove anything except the most absolutely flagrant violations? As long as someone was even decent at lying, then I'd never be able to catch a wrongdoer and we would be without law and order.
As a police officer friend of mine once said, "I assume everyone is telling me the truth. Then I figure out whose story does not add up." But you can only do that with all the evidence, and this administration has been particularly adept at simply not providing things. Again, that does not mean he's guilty of anything. If I take him at his word, it means he's being stubborn and sticking it to the other side because he can. But is that a good enough reason for a government to act or not act? Because I can stick it to the other side?
If it is, then don't be surprised when the other side realizes it's fair game. (And don't give me the Obama was hiding everything speech too; Obama was worse than Bush at open government, but the current administration is far, far worse than both of his predecessors at it. That's an objective fact and any statement denying it is pure partisanship that is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty for Conservative government.)
QuoteBut when a group of people has been consistently trying cling to any and all accusations and "Russia, Russia, Russia!" conspiracy nonsense in a desperate attempt to find something (anything!) that sticks to hang the President with, there comes a point where I will just roll my eyes and wait for the evidence. And by "evidence" I mean actual concrete "proof" rather than idle speculation from deranged people on the internet, obsessed with the man and trumpeting (pun!) out their "theories" as settled fact.
What was interesting with Russia was that the Mueller investigation found more than enough evidence to qualify as a preponderance of the evidence about Mr. Trump, and found evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for 16 of the President's staff / companions. And they were blocked by the White House from finding other evidence, and basically stated as such when asked to provide an analysis in Volume 2. The charitable way of looking at that issue would be the White House decided they didn't need to know that. The uncharitable way to look at it would be to say the White House obstructed the investigation.
Give the investigation a read. It's 600 pages, so it could take you a while, but there are free podcasts of people just reading it without commentary to listen to when you're driving somewhere (it takes about 12 hours). Most of it is pretty darn dry and only of interest to people who enjoy legal theorycrafting (like me). But there are sections that make you sit up and go, "Wait...what? Why?" and then there's no answer. Usually because the author would put something analgous to, "we were prevented from going further in this direction."
Bill Barr's summary of the investigation was... well, on this one I can't be charitable: it wasn't even factual.
EDIT: And thank you for having a peaceful and open conversation about this. Your willingness to entertain the possibility, at least in your words, is honestly appreciated.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 02:45:47 PM
County canvassers are free to recount their county in a great number of states if that county is close to a tie. It doesn't happen much because, on the whole, it tends not to change elections.
It doesn't happen because a close tie in a county is completely and totally irrelevant to a Federal election for President. That ought to be obvious, because such elections are decided at the State level. In fact both Alabama and Colorado State election law says that ALL BALLOTS IN A GIVEN CONTEST must be counted in a recount. Can't find Alaska.
It should be blatantly obvious that no State would even write such a law that you suggested.
Quote from: Tanin WulfI can have a rule, and it stands under Bush v. Gore, where only counties where the tally was within 5% have to be recounted.
The only time it's ever been tried was by making new law by a Democrats majority Florida Supreme Court.[1]
[1] Actually I'm wrong about that. Those 4 counties weren't even close, they were huge Gore majorities, where democrats ran the county election boards. The hope was they could manufacture votes.
Trump is totally Putin's puppet! A stronger Ukraine is the numero uno priority on Russia's wish list, thus Trump's financial and military support of the Ukraine proves Trump is a Putin operative.
Meanwhile, the Bidens totally have ZERO financial ties to China and Moscow. Hunter is just a nice guy who wanders the world and totally random people give him millions of dollars for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Maybe its because Hunter's so cute!
As for Trump having "dark financial secrets", that's a big "duh!!" He made his millions in New York City construction, Atlantic City casinos and Hollywood. Those ain't gigs for saints.
But how many Trump supporters think they're voting for a moral paragon? Zero.
Trump banged porn stars, cheated on wives, now on his 3rd marriage, thinks the Bible is a kewl book, but it would have been way kewler if Jesus had included some stock tips, loves to "Mean Tweet" like a fiend, and probably knows the East Coast Mafia better than Mario Puzo.
But somehow, Trump - who has lived ONLY a life of total pampered wealth - gets that putting America First and empowering Main Street (not just Wall Street) is the real key to American prosperity and thus, happiness.
That's why Trump fans couldn't give a shit about the "$750 in taxes!!!" screeds. We all know that EVERY millionaire and billionaire hires accountants to twist the tax code to minimize their taxes. Anybody think Pelosi or Kerry or any Democrat mega-millionaire doesn't use the best accounting firm money can buy?
The difference is this one rich dude understands that a strong middle class, not an enslaved worker class beholden to gov't subsidies, is best for everyone. It's why Elon Musk is a secret Trump supporter. He knows even his $25k cheapo Teslas ain't gonna sell in a shit economy, and Tesla sales power his galactic dreams.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 06, 2020, 06:15:33 PM
Maybe its because Hunter's so cute!
People always forget Joe's brothers Frank and James who also got rich off Joe's connections... err I mean their good looks.
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 06:07:47 PM
It doesn't happen because a close tie in a county is completely and totally irrelevant to a Federal election for President.
Stop. We seem to have a misunderstanding right here. Who do you think conducts a recount? The county canvassers. Who do you think orders one? Depending on the state, it could be the county canvasser, it could be the Secretary of State, or it could arise as an operation of law.
QuoteThat ought to be obvious, because such elections are decided at the State level. In fact both Alabama and Colorado State election law says that ALL BALLOTS IN A GIVEN CONTEST must be counted in a recount. Can't find Alaska.
You sure about that? Because Colorado law 1-10.5-102 absolutely would allow a recount of only specific counties in a Federal election. (I'll let you figure out which one, specifically, would qualify under that law, but that's also not the only way a recount could be authorized: there's also the Colorado Common Law. If you wish to limit it to JUST the President, there are still ways to do it legally under the common law.) (Hint: pay VERY close attention to my phrasing. It matters.)
Same for Alabama, but the procedures are a little different because Colorado does vote-by-mail.
QuoteIt should be blatantly obvious that no State would even write such a law that you suggested.
Except for all the ones who did.
QuoteThe only time it's ever been tried was by making new law by a Democrats majority Florida Supreme Court.
Them and the other states who did it the right way.
Oh, and if you do want one that explicitly, word for word, authorizes what I'm talking about for a Presidential level: Texas.
(Texas Election Code § 212.131(d) allows recounts of "one or more election precincts" and less than the whole; specifically it's where a counting error has occurred and certified as such. Note the enactment date of that provision of the code: September 1st, 2001. It was voted on earlier that year. Why? Bush v. Gore.)
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 02:37:29 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2020, 12:07:19 PM
If you're basing your medical decisions on the President's body language and not the expert opinion of your doctor, you've got lots more problems than I can address here.
Ad hominem, irrelevant to the argument.
Body language is no way to determine the veracity of a person's claims. I'm attacking the argument, not the arguer. All I'll admit to is being snarky about it.
Quote
QuoteTrump made some incorrect speculations and then clumsily walked them back. He didn't tell people to "Inject Bleach" or "drink bleach", which was the headline afterwards.
Shifting the goalpost to cover up for your earlier claim being shown to be incorrect. Making it someone else's fault by showing a hysterical headline does not mean that your claim that it was about injecting UV is correct.
(EDIT: forgot the word is.)
My claim is that Trump never said to inject or drink bleach. Which his political opponents said he did.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PM
Body language is no way to determine the veracity of a person's claims. I'm attacking the argument, not the arguer. All I'll admit to is being snarky about it.
Even so, still irrelevant to the argument.
QuoteMy claim is that Trump never said to inject or drink bleach. Which his political opponents said he did.
Overly literal to the point absurdity. Analogous to, "I didn't say my opponent didn't kill the guy, I said he manslaughtered the guy." AND still doesn't acknowledge the UV injection claim you made, so still shifting the goalpost.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 07:17:30 PMOverly literal to the point absurdity. Analogous to, "I didn't say my opponent didn't kill the guy, I said he manslaughtered the guy." AND still doesn't acknowledge the UV injection claim you made, so still shifting the goalpost.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/04/24/potential-wuhan-coronavirus-treatment-uses-uv-light-to-disinfect-lungs-n2567591
What point are you trying to make?
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 06:56:11 PM
Stop. We seem to have a misunderstanding right here. Who do you think conducts a recount? The county canvassers. Who do you think orders one? Depending on the state, it could be the county canvasser, it could be the Secretary of State, or it could arise as an operation of law.
I am well aware that recounts are performed by county canvassers. I am also aware that recounts are ordered by the SoS or operation of State law.
However, County election boards do not order recounts for State or Federal office holders, ONLY local office holders or issues.
QuoteThat ought to be obvious, because such elections are decided at the State level. In fact both Alabama and Colorado State election law says that ALL BALLOTS IN A GIVEN CONTEST must be counted in a recount. Can't find Alaska.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 06:56:11 PM
You sure about that? Because Colorado law 1-10.5-102 absolutely would allow a recount of only specific counties in a Federal election. (I'll let you figure out which one, specifically, would qualify under that law, but that's also not the only way a recount could be authorized: there's also the Colorado Common Law. If you wish to limit it to JUST the President, there are still ways to do it legally under the common law.) (Hint: pay VERY close attention to my phrasing. It matters.)
It's clear - 1-10.5-102
(1) If the secretary of state determines that a recount is required for the office of United States senator, representative in congress, any state office or district office of state concern, any state ballot question, or any state ballot issue certified for the ballot by the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall order a complete recount of all the votes cast for that office, state ballot question, or state ballot issue no later than the thirtieth day after the election. Nowhere does it say County officials can order a recount for a State or Federal election.
I'm not even going to address the fiction that Colorado Common Law says anything at all on the matter of elections.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 07:10:54 PM
Oh, and if you do want one that explicitly, word for word, authorizes what I'm talking about for a Presidential level: Texas.
(Texas Election Code § 212.131(d) allows recounts of "one or more election precincts" and less than the whole; specifically it's where a counting error has occurred and certified as such. Note the enactment date of that provision of the code: September 1st, 2001. It was voted on earlier that year. Why? Bush v. Gore.)
The law says all ballots must be recounted. It do allow a specific precinct to be recounted, but note the requirements:
https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._election_code_section_212.034
Election judges have to sign affidavits explaining the nature of mistake and the SoS has to approve the request for the recount of the precinct.
I will say it one last time.
No State has a law where a county can can order a recount in a federal election just because it's a close election in that county or precinct.
Makes no sense.
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 08:57:00 PM
The law says all ballots must be recounted. It do allow a specific precinct to be recounted, but note the requirements:
https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._election_code_section_212.034
Election judges have to sign affidavits explaining the nature of mistake and the SoS has to approve the request for the recount of the precinct.
Bingo. Good that you spotted that you can recount just a specific county.
QuoteI will say it one last time.
No State has a law where a county can can order a recount in a federal election just because it's a close election in that county or precinct.
Makes no sense.
That's not what you said. What you said was:
QuoteNo actually it would violate Bush v. Gore, because the argument was the standard for recount had to be statewide, not by county. There is no State where Federal elections would be recounted in the manner you suggest.
Did you catch it?
Quotehad to be statewide, not by county.
That is not at all what Bush v. Gore said, and my point is upheld by that Texas law which you just admitted allows you to recount only specific areas when the Secretary of State has certified errors exist. That would allow a Presidential election to be recounted in only a couple of counties, where a voter discrepancy exists, instead of statewide.
Thank you, next!
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 08:43:48 PM
I am well aware that recounts are performed by county canvassers. I am also aware that recounts are ordered by the SoS or operation of State law.
However, County election boards do not order recounts for State or Federal office holders, ONLY local office holders or issues.
Not in Colorado, but I didn't say they did in Colorado. I said, "depending on state." That was important.
QuoteIt's clear - 1-10.5-102
(1) If the secretary of state determines that a recount is required for the office of United States senator, representative in congress, any state office or district office of state concern, any state ballot question, or any state ballot issue certified for the ballot by the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall order a complete recount of all the votes cast for that office, state ballot question, or state ballot issue no later than the thirtieth day after the election.
Nowhere does it say County officials can order a recount for a State or Federal election.
That wasn't the claim. The claim I made was "1-10.5-102 absolutely would allow a recount of only specific counties in a Federal election." Now, can you guess WHICH federal election it would allow that in?
QuoteI'm not even going to address the fiction that Colorado Common Law says anything at all on the matter of elections.
There are over 1,000 cases involving the Common Law of Colorado having to do with recounts in some way. 100 in State Court, and over 900 in the 10th Circuit, of which around 150 made it to the Supreme Court of the United States. So what you call fiction is unfortunately quite factual.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 09:08:32 PM
That's not what you said. What you said was:
QuoteNo actually it would violate Bush v. Gore, because the argument was the standard for recount had to be statewide, not by county. There is no State where Federal elections would be recounted in the manner you suggest.
Did you catch it?
Which was inresponse to what you said:
Quote from: Tanin Wolf
I can have a rule, and it stands under Bush v. Gore, where only counties where the tally was within 5% have to be recounted.
Did you catch it?!
Q.E.D.
What pisses me off about Trump is that he's cracked under the pressure and has looked like a fool too many times. The interview with that Fox guy and the Axios one were embarrassing. Then he comes out and says "maybe I'm immune!" When if you look at the balcony skit he did he was clearly having trouble breathing and wincing in pain. Someone mentioned the inject bleach bit. It did piss me off that the fake news was suggesting that, when the real story is he said something completely idiotic and instead of just saying "that came out wrong" he doubled down with a pathetic lie.
Quote from: Brad on October 06, 2020, 08:37:02 PM
What point are you trying to make?
That Mr. Trump did not mean then, nor when he offered his explanation, that the disinfectant was related to UV light, contrary to the supposition of:
Quote from: Ratman_tfHell, if someone told me that doctors were using UV light and some kind of disinfectant interally, to treat an infection, I'd have just gone, "Well, neat!"
As usual, the media spin against Trump is built on a rickety scaffold of misinterpretations.
That this is not what Mr. Trump's conversation was about, in person. To take Mr. Trump's words to mean that the President believed the disinfectants were UV light is as disingenuous as saying that Trump literally said, "inject bleach." Neither is true. The President's own explanation afterwords refutes the claim.
Anything else about whether or not UV light works is irrelevant to what he said then and what he meant then as demonstrated in the actual video and the President's explanation afterwords. The simple fact is that's not what that conversation was about. UV light was mentioned. Disinfectants were mentioned. It is clear from context that these were not the same thing.
The President, when asked about it, even said, ". . . if the sun is out or they use a disinfectant . . ." He did not mean UV light treatment and that much is obvious. These were two, separate, and distinct things in the flow of the conversation.
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 09:23:59 PM
Did you catch it?!
Q.E.D.
Yes, and you failed to show how Bush v. Gore actually met that standard. Whereas I explained where the Due Process claim in Bush v. Gore was applied and then provided examples of where you could do that and it's currently legal.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 09:15:09 PM
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 08:43:48 PM
I'm not even going to address the fiction that Colorado Common Law says anything at all on the matter of elections.
There are over 1,000 cases involving the Common Law of Colorado having to do with recounts in some way. 100 in State Court, and over 900 in the 10th Circuit, of which around 150 made it to the Supreme Court of the United States. So what you call fiction is unfortunately quite factual.
I call it fiction when we decide to hand wave to some mythical case law rather than cite anything relevant.
Quote from: myleftnut on October 06, 2020, 09:24:37 PM
Someone mentioned the inject bleach bit. It did piss me off that the fake news was suggesting that, when the real story is he said something completely idiotic and instead of just saying "that came out wrong" he doubled down with a pathetic lie.
That is probably the closest explanation to what actually happened there that anyone on this board has hit. (Though I would have sought to use less inflammatory, more charitable, words, that's your choice to make. :) )
Quote from: DocJones on October 06, 2020, 09:30:28 PM
I call it fiction when we decide to hand wave to some mythical case law rather than cite anything relevant.
Again, you made a claim:
QuoteI'm not even going to address the fiction that Colorado Common Law says anything at all on the matter of elections.
So if there's even 1 case that says anything on the matter of elections in Colorado, regardless of anything else, your claim is refuted.
There are over 1,000. They are not all relevant to the President, but that's not what you claimed.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 09:26:49 PM
Yes, and you failed to show how Bush v. Gore actually met that standard. Whereas I explained where the Due Process claim in Bush v. Gore was applied and then provided examples of where you could do that and it's currently legal.
There is a reason you keep editing my quote of your statement out of your replies.
It's because you know it was stupid. :-)
No, it's because I irrationally hate quote pyramids.
For the record, according to Westlaw, here's 100 cases that are, in some way, connected to elections in Colorado:
1. Gray v. Huntley
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 01, 1925 77 Colo. 478 238 P. 53
2. People ex rel. Harper v. City of Pueblo
Supreme Court of Colorado. May 04, 1942 109 Colo. 411 126 P.2d 339
3. Kindel v. Le Bert
Supreme Court of Colorado. January 18, 1897 23 Colo. 385 48 P. 641
4. Boger v. Smith
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 01, 1925 77 Colo. 475 238 P. 57
5. Winters v. Pacheco
Supreme Court of Colorado. September 22, 1930 88 Colo. 105 292 P. 1061
6. Clanton v. Ryan
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 13, 1890 14 Colo. 419 24 P. 258
7. Meyer v. Lamm
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 22, 1993 846 P.2d 862 1993 WL 43590
13, 1890 14 Colo. 419 24 P. 258
7. Meyer v. Lamm
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 22, 1993 846 P.2d 862 1993 WL 43590
8. Rohde v. Steinmetz
Supreme Court of Colorado. July 19, 1898 25 Colo. 308 55 P. 814
9. Leary v. Jones
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 05, 1911 51 Colo. 185 116 P. 130
10. Wiley v. McDowell
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 02, 1913 55 Colo. 236 133 P. 757
11. People v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Colorado. October 07, 1930 88 Colo. 102 292 P. 228
12. People v. Lindsey
Supreme Court of Colorado. January 24, 1927 80 Colo. 465 253 P. 465
13. Cruse v. Richards
Supreme Court of Colorado. October 15, 1934 95 Colo. 485 37 P.2d 382
14. Bromley v. Hallock
Supreme Court of Colorado. April 06, 1914 57 Colo. 148 140 P. 186
15. People v. Parks
Supreme Court of Colorado,En Banc. May 08, 1978 195 Colo. 344 579 P.2d 76
16. Stoddard v. Kuhn
Supreme Court of Colorado. August 15, 1933 93 Colo. 201 24 P.2d 747
17. Erickson v. Blair
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. October 11, 1983 670 P.2d 749
18. People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Tanquary
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 06, 1910 48 Colo. 122 109 P. 260
19. Jones v. Samora
Supreme Court of Colorado. January 27, 2014 318 P.3d 462 2014 WL 279740
20. People v. McFee
Colorado Court of Appeals, Division II. June 30, 2016 412 P.3d 848 2016 WL 3600277
21. People v. Jensen
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II. July 19, 2001 55 P.3d 135 2001 WL 811841
22. People v. Valencia
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. V. March 31, 2011 257 P.3d 1203 2011 WL 1195793
23. Moran v. Carlstrom
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. June 19, 1989 775 P.2d 1176 1989 WL 64645
24. Ochoa v. Vered
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. IV. April 16, 2009 212 P.3d 963 2009 WL 1012947
25. People v. Graham
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III. October 13, 1983 678 P.2d 1043
26. People v. Chrysler
Supreme Court of Colorado. March 05, 1928 83 Colo. 355 265 P. 92
27. People v. Matheny
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. May 20, 2002 46 P.3d 453 2002 WL 1009210
28. Riley v. Trainor
Supreme Court of Colorado. April 06, 1914 57 Colo. 155 140 P. 469
29. Fleagle v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 09, 1930 87 Colo. 532 289 P. 1078
30. Kemp v. Heebner
Supreme Court of Colorado. April 06, 1925 77 Colo. 177 234 P. 1068
31. People v. Fried
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. June 30, 1995 898 P.2d 1066 1995 WL 387169
32. Mudd v. Dorr
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I. September 15, 1977 40 Colo.App. 74 574 P.2d 97
33. Lewis v. Boynton
Supreme Court of Colorado. December 19, 1898 25 Colo. 486 55 P. 732
34. People v. Loggins
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I. May 23, 1985 709 P.2d 25
35. Houser v. Eckhardt
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 17, 1969 168 Colo. 226 450 P.2d 664
36. Ritchey v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. December 07, 1896 23 Colo. 314 47 P. 272
37. Finance Acceptance Co. v. Breaux
Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. September 26, 1966 160 Colo. 510 419 P.2d 955
38. Pope Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Garrett-Bromfield Mortg. Co.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I. January 26, 1971 29 Colo.App. 169 480 P.2d 602
39. Colorado Kenworth Corp. v. Whitworth
Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. December 05, 1960 144 Colo. 541 357 P.2d 626
40. People v. Galloway
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I. August 21, 1986 726 P.2d 249
41. People v. Scott
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. April 05, 2010 227 P.3d 894 2010 WL 1267354
42. Haley v. Austin
Supreme Court of Colorado. February 04, 1924 74 Colo. 571 223 P. 43
43. People v. Renfro
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II. November 04, 2004 117 P.3d 43 2004 WL 2955149
44. Union Gold Mining Co. v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank
Supreme Court of Colorado Territory February 01, 1875 2 Colo. 565 1875 WL 314
45. People v. McClure
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. . June 06, 1988 756 P.2d 1008 1988 WL 55800
46. People v. Cox
Supreme Court of Colorado. February 06, 2017 401 P.3d 509 2017 WL 481620
47. Vigil v. Garcia
Supreme Court of Colorado. February 05, 1906 36 Colo. 430 87 P. 543
48. People v. Ramos
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. November 12, 1985 708 P.2d 1347
49. Ebel v. Rock Island Implement Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado. January 05, 1920 67 Colo. 135 186 P. 719
50. People v. Huckleberry
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 21, 1989 768 P.2d 1235 1989 WL 12847
51. Tangeman v. Coates
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 05, 1911 51 Colo. 208 117 P. 145
52. People v. Milan
Supreme Court of Colorado. November 09, 1931 89 Colo. 556 5 P.2d 249
53. Suttle v. Sullivan
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. May 09, 1955 131 Colo. 519 283 P.2d 636
54. People v. Fuller
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. March 05, 1990 788 P.2d 741 1990 WL 19150
55. Borg v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., for City and County of Denver
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. August 20, 1984 686 P.2d 781
56. Londoner v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. February 06, 1891 15 Colo. 557 26 P. 135
57. People v. Jackson
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. April 27, 1981 627 P.2d 741
58. People v. Kazmierski
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. June 25, 2001 25 P.3d 1207 2001 WL 705685
59. Martinez v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. April 24, 2017 393 P.3d 557 2017 WL 1450127
60. Sky Fun 1 v. Schuttloffel
Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. July 02, 2001 27 P.3d 361 2001 WL 736487
61. Ochoa v. Vered
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. IV. April 17, 2008 186 P.3d 107 2008 WL 1745860
62. Capitran Inc. v. Great Western Bank
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III. February 10, 1994 872 P.2d 1370 1994 WL 43672
63. Bermel v. BlueRadios, Inc.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Division VII. February 23, 2017 442 P.3d 923 2017 WL 710485
64. People v. Texas Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado. February 27, 1929 85 Colo. 289 275 P. 896
65. People v. District Court of Fifth Judicial Dist. In and For Clear Creek County
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. June 21, 1982 647 P.2d 1206
66. Department of Transportation v. Amerco Real Estate Company
Supreme Court of Colorado. September 26, 2016 380 P.3d 117 2016 WL 5375508
67. Fain v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 30, 2014 329 P.3d 270 2014 WL 2948970
68. Cook v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. February 02, 1914 56 Colo. 477 138 P. 756
69. Mehaffy, Rider, Windholz & Wilson v. Central Bank Denver, N.A.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. January 30, 1995 892 P.2d 230 1995 WL 33071
70. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp. v. Martin
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. July 19, 1993 855 P.2d 1377 1993 WL 264700
71. People v. Vigil
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. April 14, 1986 718 P.2d 496
72. Foster v. Plock
Colorado Court of Appeals, Division VI. March 10, 2016 411 P.3d 1008 2016 WL 908728
73. Dawson v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. July 02, 2001 30 P.3d 213 2001 WL 736664
74. People v. Salaz
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. January 26, 1998 953 P.2d 1275 1998 WL 42266
75. People v. Thatcher
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. December 21, 1981 638 P.2d 760
76. Abshier v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 09, 1930 87 Colo. 507 289 P. 1081
77. People v. Hansen
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III. November 09, 1995 920 P.2d 831 1995 WL 656873
78. Zab, Inc. v. Berenergy Corp.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. June 05, 2006 136 P.3d 252 2006 WL 1520235
79. People v. Wieser
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. September 24, 1990 796 P.2d 982 1990 WL 136694
80. St. James v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. December 08, 1997 948 P.2d 1028 1997 WL 757895
81. Reppin v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 18, 1934 95 Colo. 192 34 P.2d 71
82. Martin v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. June 30, 2014 329 P.3d 247 2014 WL 2945800
83. People v. Fry
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II. November 07, 2002 74 P.3d 360 2002 WL 31477777
84. Thatcher v. Rockwell
Supreme Court of Colorado December 01, 1878 4 Colo. 375 1878 WL 283
85. Fraternal Order of Police, Colorado Lodge No. 19 v. City of Commerce City
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 28, 2000 996 P.2d 133 2000 WL 224109
86. People v. Taylor
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 25, 2002 41 P.3d 681 2002 WL 257530
87. Isham v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. November 28, 1927 82 Colo. 550 262 P. 89
88. Buckley v. Chilcutt
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. November 23, 1998 968 P.2d 112 1998 WL 812866
89. Simpson v. Yale Investments, Inc.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. December 19, 1994 886 P.2d 689 1994 WL 703299
90. People ex rel. Stidger v. Horan
Supreme Court of Colorado. November 06, 1905 34 Colo. 304 86 P. 252
91. People v. LaRosa
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. January 14, 2013 293 P.3d 567 2013 WL 142504
92. People v. Allgier
Colorado Court of Appeals, Division III. August 23, 2018 428 P.3d 713 2018 WL 4016565
93. Todd v. Bear Valley Village Apartments
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. April 26, 1999 980 P.2d 973 1999 WL 253095
94. People v. Williams
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. June 28, 1999 984 P.2d 56 1999 WL 431174
95. Young v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. July 02, 2001 30 P.3d 202 2001 WL 736571
96. Lobato v. State
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. October 19, 2009 218 P.3d 358 2009 WL 3337684
97. Colorado Coffee Bean, LLC v. Peaberry Coffee Inc.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. IV. February 18, 2010 251 P.3d 9 2010 WL 547633
98. Black v. Black
Colorado Court of Appeals, Division VI. January 25, 2018 422 P.3d 592 2018 WL 549693
99. United Airlines, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. January 24, 2000 993 P.2d 1152 2000 WL 52892
100. Julius Hyman & Co. v. Velsicol Corp.
Supreme Court of Colorado, en Banc. May 28, 1951 123 Colo. 563 233 P.2d 977
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 06, 2020, 07:17:30 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PM
Body language is no way to determine the veracity of a person's claims. I'm attacking the argument, not the arguer. All I'll admit to is being snarky about it.
Even so, still irrelevant to the argument.
Then why did you bring it up?
Quote
QuoteMy claim is that Trump never said to inject or drink bleach. Which his political opponents said he did.
Overly literal to the point absurdity. Analogous to, "I didn't say my opponent didn't kill the guy, I said he manslaughtered the guy." AND still doesn't acknowledge the UV injection claim you made, so still shifting the goalpost.
You lost me. What claim are you referring to?
Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2020, 02:39:09 PM
I think the biggest argument is: If two candidates are neck and neck, does it really matter which one wins? From a practical, immediate standpoint, yes. The results for the country may be very different, depending on who runs the country for the next four years. That's why it's such a partisan issue, because people are looking at the immediate reward of their candidate winning. But from the standpoint of a constitutional republic? No, it doesn't matter whether the 51% or the 49% candidate wins. They both were chosen by almost exactly the same number of people, so either represents the people about equally. If the ground rules were known beforehand, and the election was fair, then the mechanism for choosing the top candidate in a close race isn't the existential threat to democracy that people who really really want their candidate to win this time think it is.
I agree with this. In general, if there is a true will of the people, any election is going to have a margin of error of at least 2-3% percent in determining it. Gerrymandering and other legal influences will shift the election by at least that much. In the interests of fairness and the rule of law, we should solve voting problems and prosecute wrongdoing - but it likely won't shift the election.
That said, I disagree with an earlier point:
Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2020, 10:51:11 AM
And the more general principle still stands. With a close national popular vote, you might need to recount 130 million ballots. If only Florida is in dispute, that's reduced to 9 million ballots, and from a practical standpoint could be much less (cf. the 4 counties). There's a real practical advantage to blocking votes, though statewide groupings are a grosser than ideal division.
In general, higher statistics counting means that there is *less* likelihood of an unclear win. The only reason why the 2000 election was so tight was because of the high-swing effect of the Electoral College which brought it down to a big swing on relatively few votes. Historically, the popular vote hasn't had a margin of less than 100,000 in over a century. It's effectively impossible for it to be a strict tie.
So whoever wins the vote, wins the vote. If problems are reported in certain counties, we would recount the counties where problems are reported - not all counties.
Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2020, 02:39:27 AM
In general, higher statistics counting means that there is *less* likelihood of an unclear win. The only reason why the 2000 election was so tight was because of the high-swing effect of the Electoral College which brought it down to a big swing on relatively few votes. Historically, the popular vote hasn't had a margin of less than 100,000 in over a century. It's effectively impossible for it to be a strict tie.
So whoever wins the vote, wins the vote. If problems are reported in certain counties, we would recount the counties where problems are reported - not all counties.
That reasoning ignores the incentives to cheat built into a popular vote election--never mind the other bad effects of concentrating on only certain urban areas. Chicago and Philadelphia are two of the obvious places that have strong statistical and circumstantial evidence of widespread cheating in the modern era in an attempt to influence the outcome of their respective states elections, starting with Chicago at least by 1960. In a popular vote election, everything else changes--how the candidates campaign, what will win, etc. The incentive to cheat goes nationwide--and for practical reasons involving how cheating can occur, the only way cheat in enough volume to change a national election is in the very urban areas that will be the focus.
It essentially moves all of rural America from having any say in the national elections. I know that's the life-long dreams of many on the left. If that's where you want to go, you'd better get ready for the National Divorce.
OK, so at this point this thread has devolved into just shifting arguments to win a point, rather than focusing on what claims have been made and refuted. So anyone else who wants the last word, go for it. :)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 07, 2020, 12:53:12 AM
Then why did you bring it up?
I didn't bring up body language as a point of veracity of medical advice. I brought it up to point out it clearly indicated that the DOCTOR was confused, not President Trump. His body language showed he was taken aback by the disinfectant request and wasn't quite sure how to respond.
QuoteYou lost me. What claim are you referring to?
Already answered to Brad, but the thread is moving fast, so to repeat exactly what I am objecting to (which is not the claim that Trump said "inject bleach" and not the claim that Trump gave bad medical advice, I am refuting neither of those claims because they're not the issue we're discussing):
Quote from: Ratman_tf
Hell, if someone told me that doctors were using UV light and some kind of disinfectant interally, to treat an infection, I'd have just gone, "Well, neat!"
As usual, the media spin against Trump is built on a rickety scaffold of misinterpretations.
That this is not what Mr. Trump's conversation was about, in person. To take Mr. Trump's words to mean that the President believed the disinfectants were UV light is as disingenuous as saying that Trump literally said, "inject bleach." Neither is true. The President's own explanation afterwords refutes the claim.
Anything else about whether or not UV light works is irrelevant to what he said then and what he meant then as demonstrated in the actual video and the President's explanation afterwords. The simple fact is that's not what that conversation was about. UV light was mentioned. Disinfectants were mentioned. It is clear from context that these were not the same thing. (EDIT: This line is parenthesis is not in my original response, but your overly literal he didn't use the exact words "inject bleach" ignores the fact that drinking most commercial disinfectants will cause bad things, and it is crystal clear he did not mean UV light treatment. It is as easy as he made an off the cuff statement and when someone asked him to clarify, he decided to double down. It's his standard operating procedure, for good or ill.)
The President, when asked about it, even said, ". . . if the sun is out or they use a disinfectant . . ." He did not mean UV light treatment and that much is obvious. These were two, separate, and distinct things in the flow of the conversation.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 07, 2020, 09:23:07 AM
OK, so at this point this thread has devolved into just shifting arguments to win a point, rather than focusing on what claims have been made and refuted. So anyone else who wants the last word, go for it. :)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 07, 2020, 12:53:12 AM
Then why did you bring it up?
I didn't bring up body language as a point of veracity of medical advice. I brought it up to point out it clearly indicated that the DOCTOR was confused, not President Trump. His body language showed he was taken aback by the disinfectant request and wasn't quite sure how to respond.
QuoteYou lost me. What claim are you referring to?
Already answered to Brad, but the thread is moving fast, so to repeat exactly what I am objecting to (which is not the claim that Trump said "inject bleach" and not the claim that Trump gave bad medical advice, I am refuting neither of those claims because they're not the issue we're discussing):
Quote from: Ratman_tf
Hell, if someone told me that doctors were using UV light and some kind of disinfectant interally, to treat an infection, I'd have just gone, "Well, neat!"
As usual, the media spin against Trump is built on a rickety scaffold of misinterpretations.
That this is not what Mr. Trump's conversation was about, in person. To take Mr. Trump's words to mean that the President believed the disinfectants were UV light is as disingenuous as saying that Trump literally said, "inject bleach." Neither is true. The President's own explanation afterwords refutes the claim.
Anything else about whether or not UV light works is irrelevant to what he said then and what he meant then as demonstrated in the actual video and the President's explanation afterwords. The simple fact is that's not what that conversation was about. UV light was mentioned. Disinfectants were mentioned. It is clear from context that these were not the same thing. (EDIT: This line is parenthesis is not in my original response, but your overly literal he didn't use the exact words "inject bleach" ignores the fact that drinking most commercial disinfectants will cause bad things, and it is crystal clear he did not mean UV light treatment. It is as easy as he made an off the cuff statement and when someone asked him to clarify, he decided to double down. It's his standard operating procedure, for good or ill.)
The President, when asked about it, even said, ". . . if the sun is out or they use a disinfectant . . ." He did not mean UV light treatment and that much is obvious. These were two, separate, and distinct things in the flow of the conversation.
No one cares. Literally no one.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf on October 07, 2020, 09:23:07 AM
OK, so at this point this thread has devolved into just shifting arguments to win a point, rather than focusing on what claims have been made and refuted. So anyone else who wants the last word, go for it. :)
I'll take it! The last word is "Sasquatch"!
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 07, 2020, 08:00:40 AM
Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2020, 02:39:27 AM
In general, higher statistics counting means that there is *less* likelihood of an unclear win. The only reason why the 2000 election was so tight was because of the high-swing effect of the Electoral College which brought it down to a big swing on relatively few votes. Historically, the popular vote hasn't had a margin of less than 100,000 in over a century. It's effectively impossible for it to be a strict tie.
So whoever wins the vote, wins the vote. If problems are reported in certain counties, we would recount the counties where problems are reported - not all counties.
That reasoning ignores the incentives to cheat built into a popular vote election--never mind the other bad effects of concentrating on only certain urban areas. Chicago and Philadelphia are two of the obvious places that have strong statistical and circumstantial evidence of widespread cheating in the modern era in an attempt to influence the outcome of their respective states elections, starting with Chicago at least by 1960. In a popular vote election, everything else changes--how the candidates campaign, what will win, etc. The incentive to cheat goes nationwide--and for practical reasons involving how cheating can occur, the only way cheat in enough volume to change a national election is in the very urban areas that will be the focus.
I'm not even against the Electoral College, but this is not a good reason. There already is incentive to cheat nationwide, because there are more offices than just the President in the government. Much of the cheating has been for local government, not national. Higher statistics and involving more voters means that cheating requires a much greater volume, which you seem to acknowledge. In 2000, only six hundred fraudulent votes could have swayed the outcome. But it would have taken over 500,000 fraudulent ballots to change the popular vote. That's nearly a thousand times more cheating required.
In a closely divided government, I don't see this. The Republicans have had years in control of the national government - during which they had ample opportunity to investigate and prosecute election fraud in the 2016 election. Nothing even close to this scale has come to light.
In general, a positive of the Electoral College is that it forces candidates to have support spread over a wide geographic area - which works against factionalism of pitting one part of the country against another. This reduces the chance of developing into civil war. To win elections, you need to have widespread support, not just hardened support in a few key areas. However, the difference in population between the states is really extreme now -- much moreso than when the republic was founded. There has been no clear and consistent philosophy on what qualifies as a state, nor does it inherently have any particular effect. Low population states can be urban and liberal like Connecticut or Delaware. It is a historical accident that there are more low-population rural states than low-population urban states.
I think there is solid reasoning behind the Electoral College in forcing widespread support, but I think the system would be more fair if states were more equal in population.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 07, 2020, 08:00:40 AM
It essentially moves all of rural America from having any say in the national elections. I know that's the life-long dreams of many on the left. If that's where you want to go, you'd better get ready for the National Divorce.
People should have a say in elections based on how many of them there are. That's a fucking fundamental of democracy. If a group has a low population nationally, then they have a limited say in the elections. Asian-Americans are even more of a minority than rural Americans, for example. By your logic, Asian-Americans are prevented from having any say in national elections because of their small numbers. But they accept that they are a minority, and aren't whining that they need special extra representation or they will quit the country.
Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2020, 07:30:11 PM
People should have a say in elections based on how many of them there are. That's a fucking fundamental of democracy. If a group has a low population nationally, then they have a limited say in the elections. Asian-Americans are even more of a minority than rural Americans, for example. By your logic, Asian-Americans are prevented from having any say in national elections because of their small numbers. But they accept that they are a minority, and aren't whining that they need special extra representation or they will quit the country.
Except that's not how it works. If you're a minority position, you have zero say in a winner-takes-all election, unless you happen to be a swing faction and manage to trade your votes for some scraps. That's why the US is not just a democracy, but a constitutional democracy based on a limited, decentralized government. That means there are some basic rights and privileges that can't be taken away, no matter how tiny a minority you belong to. And when the government was small and it's scope limited, that meant that 51% didn't have the power to institute totalitarian controls over the 49%. Decentralization meant even if you're a tiny a minority, you could go off and found your own community somewhere and live by the rules you prefer, without nosy nellies forcing you to live your life by their standards. These are all fundamental to American democracy, not the idea that the 51% in power can do anything.
Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2020, 07:30:11 PM
People should have a say in elections based on how many of them there are. That's a fucking fundamental of democracy. If a group has a low population nationally, then they have a limited say in the elections. Asian-Americans are even more of a minority than rural Americans, for example. By your logic, Asian-Americans are prevented from having any say in national elections because of their small numbers. But they accept that they are a minority, and aren't whining that they need special extra representation or they will quit the country.
That would be true if being an Asian versus not Asian was as important as being rural versus urban (and the gradients in between). I disagree quite strongly that the two things are even comparable. They certainly weren't to the founders--not even with their agonizing about slavery and the "compromise" that didn't fulfill the promise of their broader thought until after 1 million American died fighting about it.
While this is often express as rural versus urban it is more than that. "Non-urban" populations are the real divider here, and they are not a small proportion of population. What they are is dispersed in ways that makes it inefficient to reach them. The interests of a few cities should not dominate the affairs of the nation--
more than they already do due to a concentration of population and the influence this provides. A concept straight out of the Federalists Papers.
In any case, I state again that going to the Maine/Nebraska solution solves the issue you have raised as it pertains to the constitution. You don't like that, suggest your own fucking amendment to the fundamental document related to our republic and try to sell it.
I can see several posters on this board are still unaware that the United States is a coalition of independent entities and not some sort of monolith. Almost like they don't understand federalism, or what a constitutional republic is...
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2020, 09:51:32 AM
I can see several posters on this board are still unaware that the United States is a coalition of independent entities and not some sort of monolith. Almost like they don't understand federalism, or what a constitutional republic is...
They've been taught otherwise in school for several generations now.
Though liberals do love federalism sometimes, i.e. marijuana, sanctuary states.
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2020, 09:51:32 AM
I can see several posters on this board are still unaware that the United States is a coalition of independent entities and not some sort of monolith. Almost like they don't understand federalism, or what a constitutional republic is...
I mostly blame the school system, since this sort nuances and civic issues aren't really taught IME. Plus there's also an element of maturity and perspective to this. I didn't fully know about this stuff till I picked it up from the internet. And then I started looking at voting and population density maps, and it suddenly dawned on me how just a few cities could totally swing an entire election on a direct democratic system and screw over entire swaths of land consisting of hundreds (thousands?) miles of territory who couldn't possibly share their same needs or concerns given their different geographic realities and circumstances. And if that was the case, then WTF would be the point for them to remain in the union? And that's when I realized why the electoral college was necessary.
I'd say a bigger problem is the zeitgeist. When there's a problem, whether a novel disease, an economic downturn, or any of the social justice issues, how many people think it's the government's job to fix it? Almost all of them. And while it's stronger on the left, no politicians on the right have seriously tried to shrink the federal octopus. We're more than a century into the growth of central government power, so it's the default mode of thinking.
It's also the source of many of our problems. The solution to an increasingly polarized society isn't to increase the power and control of the majority over everyone else. It's to decentralize, to stop trying to solve every problem at the federal level, and to let states and local municipalities decide what's best for them.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2020, 08:06:11 AM
While this is often express as rural versus urban it is more than that. "Non-urban" populations are the real divider here, and they are not a small proportion of population. What they are is dispersed in ways that makes it inefficient to reach them. The interests of a few cities should not dominate the affairs of the nation--more than they already do due to a concentration of population and the influence this provides. A concept straight out of the Federalists Papers.
But again, there's nothing in the Electoral College *system* that inherently favors non-urban over urban. In the modern-day U.S., that is the current balance because there happen to be more states like Idaho than there are like Connecticut, but that's an accident of history - not a feature of the system. It wasn't clear that would be the division at the time of the Federalist Papers, since the big rural states hadn't been established. In a different country - or in our own at different times, it's just as likely that the state division could favor the *urban* population, by having a bunch of small urban states like Connecticut. It's just a question of where the state lines fall.
For what it's worth, I have the same problem with the United Nations, where the issue is even more extreme. Does it really make sense that Tuvalu (population 11k) has the same vote as the U.S. (population 300M)? I don't think that is a good approach for a democracy.
So here would be my question: Suppose a newly-established country wanted to reform and institute a new constitution, and they looked to the United States. However, their states were divided so that there are a large number of small-population urban states. Should they still use the Electoral College? Or do you think they should use a different system?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2020, 08:06:11 AM
In any case, I state again that going to the Maine/Nebraska solution solves the issue you have raised as it pertains to the constitution. You don't like that, suggest your own fucking amendment to the fundamental document related to our republic and try to sell it.
What I said was that the *good* and *intended* property of the Electoral College is that it guards against factionalism. It forces presidential candidates to have widespread geographic support, rather than concentrated support in just one region. I consider that to be a positive for the long-term stability of the country. By contrast, the Maine/Nebraska approach of split electors takes away this feature - if it were to be implemented by all the states - which it is unlikely to. So, I consider the Maine/Nebraska approach to make the system worse by removing it's most positive feature.
From my view, I don't think there is a simple or easy solution from our current status as a union. I think an improvement might be to expand the Senate, so the largest states have three Senate seats instead of two. For consistency, I might say if a state is more than 50% over the average state population, it should get a third seat.
With all due respect, and being aware I'm not from the US... most of you people enjoy your current standards of life in no small part due to the fact that the US is the biggest superpower in the world and the US dollar is essentially the world's default currency.
Pretending the US is not a monolithic country is a bit ridiculous at this point in history. You would be in a totally different (and much worse) position in your everyday life if the US was not a single country with a single army (which also happens to be by far the biggest army on the planet). Just think at the sustainability of your current national debt without the "backing" of the dollar.
Also, in practical terms, should worse come to worse, whoever gets the backing of the army wins by default and gets to control the country. At that point, the constitution, the laws, the accords between states etc. would just be pieces of paper.
Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2020, 05:09:54 PM
I'd say a bigger problem is the zeitgeist. When there's a problem, whether a novel disease, an economic downturn, or any of the social justice issues, how many people think it's the government's job to fix it? Almost all of them. And while it's stronger on the left, no politicians on the right have seriously tried to shrink the federal octopus. We're more than a century into the growth of central government power, so it's the default mode of thinking.
It's also the source of many of our problems. The solution to an increasingly polarized society isn't to increase the power and control of the majority over everyone else. It's to decentralize, to stop trying to solve every problem at the federal level, and to let states and local municipalities decide what's best for them.
Credit where it's due, this is a pretty good hit on the problems of today.
Back in the dark ages -- the 80's -- Tip O'Neill once famously remarked that all politics are local. The problem is that here we are, forty years later, and somehow a goodly chunk of us think all power should flow from Washington.
To which my response is 'holy shit, those guys can't even agree to disagree at this point! Let's settle this at a local or state level'.
And the federal system WILL resist this, because it constitutes a reduction in their power.
Quote from: jhkim on October 09, 2020, 05:00:57 AM
What I said was that the *good* and *intended* property of the Electoral College is that it guards against factionalism. It forces presidential candidates to have widespread geographic support, rather than concentrated support in just one region. I consider that to be a positive for the long-term stability of the country. By contrast, the Maine/Nebraska approach of split electors takes away this feature - if it were to be implemented by all the states - which it is unlikely to. So, I consider the Maine/Nebraska approach to make the system worse by removing it's most positive feature.
From my view, I don't think there is a simple or easy solution from our current status as a union. I think an improvement might be to expand the Senate, so the largest states have three Senate seats instead of two. For consistency, I might say if a state is more than 50% over the average state population, it should get a third seat.
I'm sure you do think that is a better solution. It doesn't solve the issue you addressed in the first paragraph as well as the Maine/Nebraska approach does. What it does do is conveniently lock in the rule of Democrats forever. Not to mention create a nightmare for the census--as if there aren't already enough politics around that.
Look, I'm fine with leaving things the way they are. There should be a counter force to the concentrated interests, and every state by being a state having essentially +2 electoral votes past their rough population is as good a solution as any. It worked for the founders when New York and Virginia dominating was the worry. With a few blips over adding free/slave states in pairs to kick the can down the road, it's worked most of the time since.
Again, the original stated worry by the proponents of removing the electoral college is that people in states dominated by one party have no effective say in the presidential election. If you want to change that, leave the +2 state votes alone and go to a more proportional allocation for the electoral votes based on population. This leaves Wyoming along, who isn't having this problem. It breaks California into 50 odd chunks all with one electoral vote each. To a lesser extent, the same thing happens in Texas, Florida, New York, etc. Austin doesn't get to dominate the state of Texas. They do get a vote. LA and San Fran get a few (not sure exactly how their districts lay out, but has to be more than one). But they don't get to say what the rest of California does, except guaranteeing those +2 votes for the state. Congressional districts aren't the only way to do the proportional break of course. What they are is a system that works and doesn't take a lot more wrangling than normal. (Gerrymandering is already crazy. There's not much room for it to get worse.)
Your idea does the direct opposite of what you say. It gives +25 electoral votes to the most dominant regions of the country without giving a voice to anyone.
Quote from: Luca on October 09, 2020, 06:30:18 AM
With all due respect, and being aware I'm not from the US... most of you people enjoy your current standards of life in no small part due to the fact that the US is the biggest superpower in the world and the US dollar is essentially the world's default currency.
Pretending the US is not a monolithic country is a bit ridiculous at this point in history. You would be in a totally different (and much worse) position in your everyday life if the US was not a single country with a single army (which also happens to be by far the biggest army on the planet). Just think at the sustainability of your current national debt without the "backing" of the dollar.
Also, in practical terms, should worse come to worse, whoever gets the backing of the army wins by default and gets to control the country. At that point, the constitution, the laws, the accords between states etc. would just be pieces of paper.
That is exactly what someone who doesn't live here would say, and you'd be 100% wrong.
Also your comment about the army indicates you literally have no concept of how our military is structured. This ain't North Korea.
Quote from: Brad on October 09, 2020, 11:08:04 AM
Also your comment about the army indicates you literally have no concept of how our military is structured. This ain't North Korea.
Enlighten me then. Are you saying, in case of an internal power struggle, the US army would divide itself based on state origins (assuming that was the cause i.e. one or more states trying to secede)?
Because if the army does not somehow split, the result is pretty much guaranteed to be "whoever has the army backing wins".
Quote from: Luca on October 09, 2020, 11:26:45 AMEnlighten me then. Are you saying, in case of an internal power struggle, the US army would divide itself based on state origins (assuming that was the cause i.e. one or more states trying to secede)?
Because if the army does not somehow split, the result is pretty much guaranteed to be "whoever has the army backing wins".
Yeah, it probably would. Most of the actual deployed army is made up by people in the reserves and National Guard who have strong ties to their own states/communities. If (when) the US balkanizes, the "army" will cease to exist in its current form. Hell, there's an armory a couple blocks from my neighborhood, and I doubt any of those dudes would willingly start rolling tanks down the street. Most likely they'd tell the government to fuck off and essentially desert to form their own entity.
Quote from: Brad on October 09, 2020, 11:34:25 AM
Yeah, it probably would. Most of the actual deployed army is made up by people in the reserves and National Guard who have strong ties to their own states/communities. If (when) the US balkanizes, the "army" will cease to exist in its current form. Hell, there's an armory a couple blocks from my neighborhood, and I doubt any of those dudes would willingly start rolling tanks down the street. Most likely they'd tell the government to fuck off and essentially desert to form their own entity.
More specifically, the upper ranks in the officers would probably mostly go one way or the other. It's the Captains down to enlisted where you'd see what Brad just described. Even in hard-line tyrannies, local troops are often reluctant to fire on their neighbors. Now magnify that tendency. Not saying it wouldn't happen at all, but it would fracture a lot faster than some places.
There's also the point that enlisted ranks are disproportionately filled (compared to state populations) with Southerners and Midwesterners. Not to mention that even outside those areas, you'll often see an uneven scatter--such as rural California compared to urban California. There's still a lot of LA troops, but you can't just look at the Californina numbers and assume that all of those folks are going to side with LA-oriented leaders.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 09, 2020, 01:46:01 PM
Quote from: Brad on October 09, 2020, 11:34:25 AM
Yeah, it probably would. Most of the actual deployed army is made up by people in the reserves and National Guard who have strong ties to their own states/communities. If (when) the US balkanizes, the "army" will cease to exist in its current form. Hell, there's an armory a couple blocks from my neighborhood, and I doubt any of those dudes would willingly start rolling tanks down the street. Most likely they'd tell the government to fuck off and essentially desert to form their own entity.
More specifically, the upper ranks in the officers would probably mostly go one way or the other. It's the Captains down to enlisted where you'd see what Brad just described. Even in hard-line tyrannies, local troops are often reluctant to fire on their neighbors. Now magnify that tendency. Not saying it wouldn't happen at all, but it would fracture a lot faster than some places.
There's also the point that enlisted ranks are disproportionately filled (compared to state populations) with Southerners and Midwesterners. Not to mention that even outside those areas, you'll often see an uneven scatter--such as rural California compared to urban California. There's still a lot of LA troops, but you can't just look at the Californina numbers and assume that all of those folks are going to side with LA-oriented leaders.
Back when I was assigned to an Army Medical Center (in Washington), I felt like half the soldiers were from Texas or New York (rarely from NYC though).
Some interesting data on that. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2020/02/19/states-that-defend-uswhere-do-our-military-volunteers-call-home/#509b884e534c) (EDIT: The data is a little old, but it takes a while to collect all that data; it does show that it's not your imagination about New York though.) But doesn't come straight from the people who'd actually have the real ground-truth data on that: the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC).
I thought for certain DMDC would have a report on that already, but turns out they don't. A lot of other interesting data (https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp), but not that particular question.
The RPGsite has more reach than we thought: the Lincoln Project sent someone right before the election to ensure conservatives remain focused on holding their own side accountable at this critical time. Rock always sends scissors when paper isn't holding itself properly accountable
Ahoy!
It's so sad.
The doctors tried their best, but they were unable to save Covid from Trump.
Quote from: Luca on October 09, 2020, 06:30:18 AMWith all due respect, and being aware I'm not from the US... most of you people enjoy your current standards of life in no small part due to the fact that the US is the biggest superpower in the world and the US dollar is essentially the world's default currency.
America's real "superpower" is our economy, not our military. And our economy only exists because of the freedom enjoyed by business and inventors. If that freedom is strangled, the economy collapses into (at best) a cyberpunk dystopia.
Quote from: Luca on October 09, 2020, 06:30:18 AMPretending the US is not a monolithic country is a bit ridiculous at this point in history.
The USA has only held together due to prosperity and shared culture, but now that both are threatened, the regional differences and urban vs. rural culture issues are becoming more prominent.
The political polarization will tear us apart, probably sooner than later.
Quote from: Luca on October 09, 2020, 06:30:18 AMJust think at the sustainability of your current national debt without the "backing" of the dollar.
Trump and Warren Buffet have pretty much negated concerns about the laughable national debt. We're never paying it back and since the Treasury can print money, we could literally print a pile of $1 Billion dollar bills and throw them around like funny money. Or the USA goes bankrupt which certainly would happen if (or when) we balkanize.
Quote from: Luca on October 09, 2020, 11:26:45 AMAre you saying, in case of an internal power struggle, the US army would divide itself based on state origins (assuming that was the cause i.e. one or more states trying to secede)?
US secession will be more ideologically drive than regional. AKA, liberal vs. conservative. It would be the culmination of the culture war into a civil war.
As most of the US military are conservatives, I suspect mass defections (possibly with their gear en masse) would be a realistic event, and if that happens, the first priority of those defectors will be their friends and family back home.
Quote from: Luca on October 09, 2020, 11:26:45 AMBecause if the army does not somehow split, the result is pretty much guaranteed to be "whoever has the army backing wins".
We have LOTS of combat veterans in the populace. If the US Army attacked the US populace, I suspect we'd see the Vietnam War with hamburgers instead of spring rolls.
I don't think the Harris/Biden crew can even imagine what a 1000 ex-special forces guys and USMC leathernecks could achieve if motivated, let alone if that number grew to 100,000 or more veterans and rednecks.
Here's one of those combat vets putting our politicians on notice.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2CoekuIoFEoN/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/2CoekuIoFEoN/)
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 14, 2020, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Luca on October 09, 2020, 11:26:45 AMAre you saying, in case of an internal power struggle, the US army would divide itself based on state origins (assuming that was the cause i.e. one or more states trying to secede)?
US secession will be more ideologically drive than regional. AKA, liberal vs. conservative. It would be the culmination of the culture war into a civil war.
As most of the US military are conservatives, I suspect mass defections (possibly with their gear en masse) would be a realistic event, and if that happens, the first priority of those defectors will be their friends and family back home.
Quote from: Luca on October 09, 2020, 11:26:45 AMBecause if the army does not somehow split, the result is pretty much guaranteed to be "whoever has the army backing wins".
We have LOTS of combat veterans in the populace. If the US Army attacked the US populace, I suspect we'd see the Vietnam War with hamburgers instead of spring rolls.
I don't think the Harris/Biden crew can even imagine what a 1000 ex-special forces guys and USMC leathernecks could achieve if motivated, let alone if that number grew to 100,000 or more veterans and rednecks.
Here's one of those combat vets putting our politicians on notice.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2CoekuIoFEoN/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/2CoekuIoFEoN/)
Greetings!
Totally true, my friend! There are *millions* of veterans throughout America, between the ages of say, 28 to 60. Many of these veterans if not most of them have the same kind of training as anyone currently in active service--and in definitely a large percentage, have superior discipline, maturity, and in some cases, superior training when compared to the recent trends in feminizing and coddling of our current military in a "kinder, gentler" ethos. And when you add in the additional factors of many of these veterans resisting and fighting against fucking Communists--and the added motivation of protecting, directly, their friends, family members, and community--yeah, and armed to the teeth!--that isn't a scenario I would enjoy jumping into if I was on the other side. Any such scenario like that would make Vietnam and Iraq look like a kindergarden playground. Furthermore, in many aspects, in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the opposing guerilla forces possessed *far less* professional military training, and often were far less equipped. Any real civil war breaking out in America in today's era would be far more savage and bloody than anything this country has experienced since the first Civil War of the 1860's. The element of surprise, the diffusion of forces, spread out leadership, inability to distinguish between "combatants" and "innocent civilians" would make any government campaign of a sustained nature an absolute nightmare. Then there's the fact that in the three wars mentioned--as well as other conflicts throughout the modern era--those forces had their own women participating in every manner as well. As in many aspects, it was still limited--but in a real civil war here, in America, who wouldn't think that *millions* of American women would not also be supporting their men serving in the resistance forces? Sabotage, espionage, ambushes, torture and atrocities of every kind would be a constant and routine reality.
I'm reminded of reading and learning about a Russian woman, serving in the Donbas Republic forces just in recent years in the civil war there between Donbas, Lugansk, fighting against Ukraine. This woman is about 30ish, with two kids of her own. She volunteered to be a fucking sniper, and has gone on to serve with considerable distinction, discipline, and ruthless courage. She gained the nickname of "Snow White". Comrades of hers that were interviewed related how she has become an excellent sniper, with numerous kills to her credit. She went on to say, "Everyday that I fight and kill the enemy, is another day for my children to live". How's that for some motivation?
The interview I saw of her showed her dressed in an ad-hoc kind of uniform, with a Ghillie suit, all camo'd the fuck up. Her appearance was rough and harsh, though her weapon and gear was otherwise fucking sharp. Sweet scope, 7.62mm, she knew what the fuck she was doing. She was cold, matter-of-fact, and serious as fuck. I could tell by the look in her eyes she was a real killer, and committed.
Any civil war in America will be savage and extremely bloody.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 13, 2020, 11:58:58 PM
Trump and Warren Buffet have pretty much negated concerns about the laughable national debt. We're never paying it back and since the Treasury can print money, we could literally print a pile of $1 Billion dollar bills and throw them around like funny money. Or the USA goes bankrupt which certainly would happen if (or when) we balkanize.
If we start printing $1 trillion dollar coins (the actual proposal), then the dollar is going to quickly lose its reserve status. And the debt is going to become a problem if interest rates ever rise. The US is in a trap.
The entire world is in a debt trap. The US has a better debt-to-GDP than a lot of other G20 economies. None of this debt, world-wide, is ever going to be repaid.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PM
My claim is that Trump never said to inject or drink bleach. Which his political opponents said he did.
You know, I bet that there are fine people on both sides of the bleach injecting debate.
The US controls the interest rate on the debt, and then just prints money to pay that interest and creates a financial perpetual motion machine nobody wants to touch.
Does it really matter if every American owes $69k each or $690k each? I doubt the debt would have been paid off back when we owed $6900 each!
And since its never getting paid, and we'll just print money to pay the interest, does it matter if the debt is $25 trillion, $250 trillion or $25 quatloos?
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 15, 2020, 04:04:42 AM
The US controls the interest rate on the debt, and then just prints money to pay that interest and creates a financial perpetual motion machine nobody wants to touch.
Does it really matter if every American owes $69k each or $690k each? I doubt the debt would have been paid off back when we owed $6900 each!
And since its never getting paid, and we'll just print money to pay the interest, does it matter if the debt is $25 trillion, $250 trillion or $25 quatloos?
Only if the rest of the world decides that the dollar isn't the currency of choice any more. Once that happens, you can get hyper-inflation when the rest of the world considers dollars to be worthless. And printing endless streams of money is one way to get people to choose a different currency as their base ...
Of the three numbers, it's closer to $250 trillion. That's a bit higher than the US fiscal gap, which is the real debt, because it includes future commitments. Governments toss people in jail for not putting what they've promised to pay on their balance sheets, but ignore it when it comes to themselves. And in that regard, the US is much worse off than other major economies.
Quote from: spon on October 15, 2020, 05:50:26 AMOnly if the rest of the world decides that the dollar isn't the currency of choice any more. Once that happens, you can get hyper-inflation when the rest of the world considers dollars to be worthless. And printing endless streams of money is one way to get people to choose a different currency as their base ...
Considering something like 80% of all the wealth in the world is in USD, I don't think that will ever happen. It would take a total collapse of the United States, but then everyone goes back to the stone age at that point. Even China doesn't want that to happen.
It is effectively a MAD scenario...
The only two currencies that can 'theoretically' replace the dollar are the Yuan or the Euro.
But neither of those areas can feed themselves, so they will be pretty hard pressed to weather the initial collapse
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 15, 2020, 11:57:57 AM
It is effectively a MAD scenario...
The only two currencies that can 'theoretically' replace the dollar are the Yuan or the Euro.
But neither of those areas can feed themselves, so they will be pretty hard pressed to weather the initial collapse
Chinese currency mostly only works because they can manipulate the exchange rates between Offshore and Onshore. That scam doesn't work so hot when you're the world reserve currency. I'm bearish on Europe despite my prediction of shooting wars between Euro members by 2020 not coming true (if only barely since we're so close to kinetic war between Greece and Turkey).
Call me a gold bug if you wish but the only way I see out of this is ditching fiat and going back to some sort of asset backed. Doesn't have to be gold or silver but those are traditional. It'd mean smaller growth but at least it's not pixie farts.
Quote from: KingCheops on October 15, 2020, 12:17:23 PM
Call me a gold bug if you wish but the only way I see out of this is ditching fiat and going back to some sort of asset backed. Doesn't have to be gold or silver but those are traditional. It'd mean smaller growth but at least it's not pixie farts.
There's nothing wrong with gold, there's a reason it's been the currency of choice for most of the history of the world.
But all we really need is something that would prevent the government from fiddling with the monetary supply. Because that's how governments tax people without their consent (no legislation needed), it's what has allowed the government to fund even more by borrowing obscene amounts at obscenely low interest rates, it's a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich and led to the stagnation of wages since the 1970s and the booming stock market over the same period, and it's also the cause of the boom and bust cycles.
A cryptocurrency would work just fine. Anything that makes it impossible for the government to print more buxs.
Quote from: spon on October 15, 2020, 05:50:26 AM
Only if the rest of the world decides that the dollar isn't the currency of choice any more. Once that happens, you can get hyper-inflation when the rest of the world considers dollars to be worthless. And printing endless streams of money is one way to get people to choose a different currency as their base ...
Totally agree, it will work until it doesn't work any longer. I read this book a few years ago which was one author's take on such a collapse. Extremely chilling.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 15, 2020, 11:57:57 AM
It is effectively a MAD scenario...
The only two currencies that can 'theoretically' replace the dollar are the Yuan or the Euro.
But neither of those areas can feed themselves, so they will be pretty hard pressed to weather the initial collapse
I have heard Jim Rickards talking about IMF created SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) which could theoretically replace the USD.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 15, 2020, 10:20:02 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on October 15, 2020, 11:57:57 AM
It is effectively a MAD scenario...
The only two currencies that can 'theoretically' replace the dollar are the Yuan or the Euro.
But neither of those areas can feed themselves, so they will be pretty hard pressed to weather the initial collapse
I have heard Jim Rickards talking about IMF created SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) which could theoretically replace the USD.
It is a nice theory, but the SDR is based on the economic 'basket' concept...It consists of the 3 currencies already mentioned plus the Yen and the Pound. In order for it not to be 'poisoned' by the collapse, they would have to figure out a way to generate the SDR without the US Dollar.
On top of that, the currency has to look viable to people on the street. To the majority of those, mentioning the IMF would get a 'Huh?' response. The globalists will buy into it, but they have to keep the proles in line and force only gets you so far.
The initial collapse also becomes a big problem with the 3 day supply rule. You have already seen the paper towel/toilet paper panic as well as the food panic earlier this year.
This is also why a CW2 kickoff in the US will be incredibly bad for the leftist authoritarians in the major urban areas. It won't be a Sarajevo type situation because there isn't anything in the cities that we absolutely need for a couple of weeks. You just cut the lines and let them kill each other over food. Truck drivers were already refusing to drive into rioting areas earlier this year. The Nat. Guard doesn't have the manpower to do it. Look at how many it took for Katrina relief and spread that idea across the entire continental US.
Infantry wins battles. Logistics wins wars.
Replying to Steven Mitchell about the Electoral College - apologies for the long delay.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 09, 2020, 08:31:10 AM
Quote from: jhkim on October 09, 2020, 05:00:57 AM
What I said was that the *good* and *intended* property of the Electoral College is that it guards against factionalism. It forces presidential candidates to have widespread geographic support, rather than concentrated support in just one region. I consider that to be a positive for the long-term stability of the country. By contrast, the Maine/Nebraska approach of split electors takes away this feature - if it were to be implemented by all the states - which it is unlikely to. So, I consider the Maine/Nebraska approach to make the system worse by removing it's most positive feature.
From my view, I don't think there is a simple or easy solution from our current status as a union. I think an improvement might be to expand the Senate, so the largest states have three Senate seats instead of two. For consistency, I might say if a state is more than 50% over the average state population, it should get a third seat.
I'm sure you do think that is a better solution. It doesn't solve the issue you addressed in the first paragraph as well as the Maine/Nebraska approach does. What it does do is conveniently lock in the rule of Democrats forever. Not to mention create a nightmare for the census--as if there aren't already enough politics around that.
I feel like we're talking past each other here. As I said, I think the Maine/Nebraska approach makes factionalism *worse*. Look at it this way: Currently, the Democrats have no motivation to make blue states like California any more blue. Likewise, the Republicans have no motivation to make Texas more red. Instead, they concentrate on spreading to more moderate states.
If all states were to use the Maine/Nebraska approach, then there would be motivation for the parties to make states more extreme. That would lead to even more California-vs-Texas antipathy and hatred then we already have. People are already talking about civil war, and that trend would make the divide even worse.
Because of this, I feel the current status quo is better than the Maine/Nebraska approach. The elected President has always been within 1-2% of popular vote, which is a minor effect given reducing factionalism.
However, I notice you didn't respond about how other countries should use the Electoral College. As I said earlier, there is nothing in the Electoral College per se that favors rural voters - or any other group. It purely depends on the lines of division among the states. In another country, it's quite possible that the division of states could favor urban voters over rural - if that other country had more small urban states like Delaware and Connecticut. In such a country, urban voters would be even more dominant because of the Electoral College, would you still favor it as a system?
I feel like the Electoral College and the Senate is incomplete. Politically, there really needs to be some underlying philosophy about what is allowed to be a state and what doesn't - and what representation it gets. Instead, it's just at the mercy of individual acts of Congress.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 09, 2020, 08:31:10 AM
Look, I'm fine with leaving things the way they are. There should be a counter force to the concentrated interests, and every state by being a state having essentially +2 electoral votes past their rough population is as good a solution as any. It worked for the founders when New York and Virginia dominating was the worry. With a few blips over adding free/slave states in pairs to kick the can down the road, it's worked most of the time since.
Again, the original stated worry by the proponents of removing the electoral college is that people in states dominated by one party have no effective say in the presidential election.
To be clear, I'm also fine with the status quo. Who are you saying expressed this "original stated worry"? Was it someone in this thread, or just that you've heard that argument somewhere else? I agree that I've heard it, but I think there is good reason not to buy into it because of the factionalism it encourages.
Quote from: jhkim on October 19, 2020, 01:13:06 AM
To be clear, I'm also fine with the status quo. Who are you saying expressed this "original stated worry"? Was it someone in this thread, or just that you've heard that argument somewhere else? I agree that I've heard it, but I think there is good reason not to buy into it because of the factionalism it encourages.
It is the nearly always the first "point" used every time someone start yammering about eliminating the electoral college--usually on some "reasoning" about people in certain states having a presidential vote that "doesn't count". Scare quotes used deliberately in all three places.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 19, 2020, 06:18:42 AMIt is the nearly always the first "point" used every time someone start yammering about eliminating the electoral college--usually on some "reasoning" about people in certain states having a presidential vote that "doesn't count". Scare quotes used deliberately in all three places.
I wonder if those same people complain about their votes not counting when the opposing representatives or senators are elected instead of the dudes they picked.