Dr. Pepper Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I agree it should go. The Change to the EC system in 1800 was to have a seperate election for the Vice Presidency no longer requiring the second highest voter winner in the EC to serve as VP. If the EC was so great at preserving the slave power why did the States of the old confederacy choose to attempt to leave the Union when the EC was won by Abraham Lincoln in 1860? You always try to argue this and it's stupid every time. "if it was to preserve slave power, how come it didn't do it 100% of the time". Like seriously, Scot? Might as well ask something ridiculous like "how can the EC be problematic when a majority of the time it aligns with the popular vote." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Regarding Arpaio's chances, he was elected only in one county though, and he lost the last election there by a hefty margin. Based on Trump's relatively poor performance in Arizona, a near statewide election would not bode well for Arpaio, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said: Wasn't Arpaio's job an elected position? Wasn't he elected term after term, to do the obnoxious things he did? Doesn't that bode well for his election? Except he lost his final election when Republican retirees finally got sick of him. In 2016 he lost 44-56 to Democrat Paul Penzone, while Trump beat Clinton 48-45 in Maricopa County. Maricopa County has about half the state's population, and Trump won Arizona overall 48-45, so it's a good bellweather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 19 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said: What? I'm not dreaming? FML Right now time travelers are explaining this to people back in the 90s ala Regan in BTTF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: Regarding Arpaio's chances, he was elected only in one county though, and he lost the last election there by a hefty margin. Based on Trump's relatively poor performance in Arizona, a near statewide election would not bode well for Arpaio, in my opinion. Indeed. Arpaio's popularity in Arizona has cratered since he last won election in 2012. He lost in 2016 by 13 points in a state that Trump won by 3. Then in 2017 he was found guilty of federal contempt, and needed a Trump pardon. If his popularity is tied to Trump, but lower, then his chances of winning statewide office in Arizona are essentially nil. His popularity is so bad that some people are wondering if he actually thinks he has any chance at winning, or if he's just "Running for Senate" as a cash grab. That kind of rumor is never a good sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Wasn't Arpaio's job an elected position? Wasn't he elected term after term, to do the obnoxious things he did? Doesn't that bode well for his election? Yes, he was the elected Maricopa County Sheriff. And Maricopa County is a damn good reflection of the state at-large, so it would certainly bode well for his general election chances...if he didn't just lose the most recent Sheriff election by 13 points in 2016. ETA: Sorry, forgot to click on the next page. 'd by, like, 87 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 There were two comments Trump made yesterday that have gotten little press, but are actually really important. First, he said that he would sign whatever Congress passes when it comes to immigration reform. That’s troubling in and of itself, but if you view it in broader terms, it’s downright frightening. Is he, or anyone else at the WH actually vetting the legislation that comes before Trump? Would he even care? Second, Trump said Congress should consider bringing back earmarks. While I agree with this in a vacuum, in makes me wonder, consider the questions I just raised, does this mean anyone in leadership can sneak in any provision they want? It sounds like Mr. Drain The Swamp is about to create an environment for the swamp to grow tenfold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 21 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: You always try to argue this and it's stupid every time. "if it was to preserve slave power, how come it didn't do it 100% of the time". Like seriously, Scot? Might as well ask something ridiculous like "how can the EC be problematic when a majority of the time it aligns with the popular vote." No, I'm simply standing for the radical propisition that the EC wasn't created to preserve or defend slavery. It was created to protect the interests of smaller states most of which were in the North where slavery died shortly after the creation of the US. You are historically inaccurate on this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Trump said Congress should consider bringing back earmarks. While I agree with this in a vacuum, in makes me wonder, consider the questions I just raised, does this mean anyone in leadership can sneak in any provision they want? It sounds like Mr. Drain The Swamp is about to create an environment for the swamp to grow tenfold. I think that earmarks were a mixed thing in Washington. They can be abused and lead to waste, but they also can help make compromises happen and avoid govt dysfunction. The problem is that if we bring back earmarks now, with unlimited donations to Super PACs and things like VA Gov. Bob McDonnell's obvious bribery being apparently legal (for some reason), corruption is going to get worse. Corruption is already spreading in our country, and this will only accelerate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: First, he said that he would sign whatever Congress passes when it comes to immigration reform. That’s troubling in and of itself, but if you view it in broader terms, it’s downright frightening. Is he, or anyone else at the WH actually vetting the legislation that comes before Trump? Would he even care? This is a pattern with Trump. Whenever he has those bipartisan meetings he says this type of shit because he indeed doesn't really care about DACA, or immigration reform at large, as long as he gets his wall or at least beefed up security. But, just like after the meeting in September, the GOP leadership will step in and remind him of their actual position after the fact. I think McCarthy corrected Trump at the meeting yesterday. 7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Second, Trump said Congress should consider bringing back earmarks. While I agree with this in a vacuum, in makes me wonder, consider the questions I just raised, does this mean anyone in leadership can sneak in any provision they want? It sounds like Mr. Drain The Swamp is about to create an environment for the swamp to grow tenfold. This is very difficult for me to type, but I not only agree with Trump on this, I agree with his reasoning: bringing back earmarks would indeed be a very positive step in trying to increase bipartisanship. Not that it's gonna happen of course, but if you throw enough shit at the wall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivin Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Oh no, Luis Gutierrez has rolled over and is showing his belly. Not a good look for the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: No, I'm simply standing for the radical propisition that the EC wasn't created to preserve or defend slavery. It was created to protect the interests of smaller states most of which were in the North where slavery died shortly after the creation of the US. You are historically inaccurate on this point. Or created to protect the states with lower eligible voting population. Slavers did everything they could to have an advantage against the population heavy north. That it didn't work out 100% of the time isn't somehow proof of anything. If you have proof, then offer it. Stop with the "but whadabout that one time it didn't work" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Or created to protect the states with lower eligible voting population. Slavers did everything they could to have an advantage against the population heavy north. That it didn't work out 100% of the time isn't somehow proof of anything. If you have proof, then offer it. Stop with the "but whadabout that one time it didn't work" nonsense. I did offer it. The plan to apportion the legislative branch by population was called the "New Jersey" plan for a reason. It wasn't because New Jersey was a hotbed of pro-slavery sentiment. Other small Northern States supported this plan because they knew their populations would always be small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Plan The plan to apportion solely based upon population was called the "Virginia plan" it introduced the idea of population a population weighted national legislature:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan Therefore, the EC, which gives weight to smaller states in the selection of the President of the US was created at a time when it would have benefited the Southern States to support the Virginia plan. Slave States benefited from the creation of the Senate... after the fact... because the North's population grew faster than the South. The Delegates to the US Constitutional Convention had no idea that is how history would play out. Had Virginia gotten what it wanted the Northern State's population growth would have allowed for action against slavery much sooner than it came. In other words, it was Slave holding Virginia that wanted representation based upon population and New York, New Jersey and Delaware wanted fixed equal representation for all States ignoring population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/368089-trump-to-sign-executive-order-to-reduce-veteran-suicides Trump signs exec order aimed at reducing suicides for vets transitioning to civilian life. Vets will be covered for mental health services for the year after leaving service. This is huge and is really good, much as I vomit in my mouth that it come from the shit stain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frog Eater Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I did offer it. The plan to apportion the legislative branch by population was called the "New Jersey" plan for a reason. It wasn't because New Jersey was a hotbed of pro-slavery sentiment. Other small Northern States supported this plan because they knew their populations would always be small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Plan The plan to apportion solely based upon population was called the "Virginia plan" it introduced the idea of population a population weighted national legislature:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan Therefore, the EC, which gives weight to smaller states in the selection of the President of the US was created at a time when it would have benefited the Southern States to support the Virginia plan. Slave States benefited from the creation of the Senate... after the fact... because the North's population grew faster than the South. The Delegates to the US Constitutional Convention had no idea that is how history would play out. Had Virginia gotten what it wanted the Northern State's population growth would have allowed for action against slavery much sooner than it came. In other words, it was Slave holding Virginia that wanted representation based upon population and New York, New Jersey and Delaware wanted fixed equal representation for all States ignoring population. And yet you think the EC should be done away with. Come on man, we live in a small state, without the EC we would be forgotten in a National Election. The Presidential candidates would focus on California and New York and the election would always go for the liberal left. The EC protects us here in the small states, insuring the candidates not forget us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I did offer it. The plan to apportion the legislative branch by population was called the "New Jersey" plan for a reason. It wasn't because New Jersey was a hotbed of pro-slavery sentiment. Other small Northern States supported this plan because they knew their populations would always be small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Plan The plan to apportion solely based upon population was called the "Virginia plan" it introduced the idea of population a population weighted national legislature:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan Therefore, the EC, which gives weight to smaller states in the selection of the President of the US was created at a time when it would have benefited the Southern States to support the Virginia plan. Slave States benefited from the creation of the Senate... after the fact... because the North's population grew faster than the South. The Delegates to the US Constitutional Convention had no idea that is how history would play out. Had Virginia gotten what it wanted the Northern State's population growth would have allowed for action against slavery much sooner than it came. In other words, it was Slave holding Virginia that wanted representation based upon population and New York, New Jersey and Delaware wanted fixed equal representation for all States ignoring population. I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before where we all went round and round about population and how slaves were added to it without being eligible for a vote and yada yada and there were lots of links posted back and forth and arguments made by multiple people and still at the end you're response was "but but what about that one time!" So, due to my current bout with the flu, I'm going to skip this time and pretend we've reached that point and just go ahead and roll my eyes and wonder why I bothered. 2 minutes ago, Frog Eater said: And yet you think the EC should be done away with. Come on man, we live in a small state, without the EC we would be forgotten in a National Election. The Presidential candidates would focus on California and New York and the election would always go for the liberal left. The EC protects us here in the small states, insuring the candidates not forget us. It would be great if the national election always goes for the liberal left. We wouldn't be constantly dealing with your foolish decision making. As it is, the majority of us are held hostage by the minority of you whose primary goals are to ensure everyone not them are forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before where we all went round and round about population and how slaves were added to it without being eligible for a vote and yada yada and there were lots of links posted back and forth and arguments made by multiple people and still at the end you're response was "but but what about that one time!" So, due to my current bout with the flu, I'm going to skip this time and pretend we've reached that point and just go ahead and roll my eyes and wonder why I bothered. It would be great if the national election always goes for the liberal left. We wouldn't be constantly dealing with your foolish decision making. As it is, the majority of us are held hostage by the minority of you whose primary goals are to ensure everyone not them are forgotten. As you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 38 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/368089-trump-to-sign-executive-order-to-reduce-veteran-suicides Trump signs exec order aimed at reducing suicides for vets transitioning to civilian life. Vets will be covered for mental health services for the year after leaving service. This is huge and is really good, much as I vomit in my mouth that it come from the shit stain. Why didn't he do this on Day 1? This doesn't seem like a reaction to anything current going on other than bad press. I'm glad it was passed -- but that question ought to be asked. ...which will get the response "we do something for veterans and the fake media is attacking Trump for it" -- it's a valid question. 18 minutes ago, Frog Eater said: And yet you think the EC should be done away with. Come on man, we live in a small state, without the EC we would be forgotten in a National Election. The Presidential candidates would focus on California and New York and the election would always go for the liberal left. The EC protects us here in the small states, insuring the candidates not forget us. For the presidency. There are many other branches of government where small states get (greater than proportional) representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 52 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/368089-trump-to-sign-executive-order-to-reduce-veteran-suicides Trump signs exec order aimed at reducing suicides for vets transitioning to civilian life. Vets will be covered for mental health services for the year after leaving service. This is huge and is really good, much as I vomit in my mouth that it come from the shit stain. It's really not though. The order doesn't do anything other than instruct DoD and the VA to do a better job transitioning veterans from TRICARE to VHA, something which those agencies have been trying to do for decades. All vets are covered for mental health services forever, the problem is that for that coverage to take effect the VA has to establish that it's for a condition related to military service. Which it almost always is, but the VA takes forever to determine that and can be a complicated process for veterans. The order may end up doing some good, but only if DoD and the VA successfully implement it; and if their track record is not good. If they've could've successfully implemented previous orders (and legislation), this one wouldn't have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 10, 2018 Author Share Posted January 10, 2018 Trump Has Moved a Step Closer to Implosion http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/trump-has-moved-a-step-closer-to-implosion.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.