US Politics: Dead Pimps Need Not Apply

[Zorral]

25 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Columbia and Puerto Rico have to be granted statehood and The big states have to break up, there’s no other cure to the senate problem. 

baseline no state should be larger than 12 million people, with exceptions to preserve existing city or county lines if a county or city exceeds that threshold.

California divides nicely into three, four or five states, Texas divides naturally into five states, tougher to do four, Florida divides simply into three states, Pennsylvania and New Jersey are bisected. New York City is freed from the psychotic tyrannies of Albany (and perhaps divides again?), Chicagoland is likewise freed and Ohio will have to prepare to be bisected either NS or EW in the very near future.

This is impractical surely? What about states that currently have more than a single city that have populations 12 million and / or larger?  You're talking about turning a many of our states into a medieval / Renaissance state of competing city-states like Milan, Venice and Genoa -- not to mention Naples, etc. This was a very bad system judging by several centuries of history.

Historically the reasons that Texas and California were not broken into several senator and representative states, was because this would have extended the slaveocracy powers so greatly in D.C. that there never would have been abolition.  Indeed, the insanely vicious, expensive and long slug fest to keep this from happening helped make the war of the rebellion.

[DMC]

Rumors swirling that Kelly is on the chopping block - to be replaced by Pence's CoS Nick Ayers.  DHS secretary Nielson also looks on the outs.  Wonder how many Cabinet members will be leaving - one way or another - by Christmas.  I expect it will be a lot.

[Morpheus]

At least we won’t have to listen to anymore mythmaking about “adults” curbing Trump. Kelly is a bigot and an asshole whose military service was always meant to spitshine the turd that is the Tump WH even as the president disrespected veterans at every opportunity.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Senate was never supposed to be proportional representation.  It was intended as a balm to the smaller States guaranteeing they would always have a voice in National politics.  Further it is the only provision of the US Constitution that demands unanimous ratification to change.  US Const. Art. V:

 

 

 

I know what the original intent was. My point is that it no longer works. Frankly the idea that we should be beholden to the ideas of slave owning men who died hundreds of years ago is baffling to me.  

[lokisnow]

26 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This is impractical surely? What about states that currently have more than a single city that have populations 12 million and / or larger?  You're talking about turning a many of our states into a medieval / Renaissance state of competing city-states like Milan, Venice and Genoa -- not to mention Naples, etc. This was a very bad system judging by several centuries of history.

Historically the reasons that Texas and California were not broken into several senator and representative states, was because this would have extended the slaveocracy powers so greatly in D.C. that there never would have been abolition.  Indeed, the insanely vicious, expensive and long slug fest to keep this from happening helped make the war of the rebellion.

no not really, what is far more impractical is allowing states to remain intact in spite of how big they are, population wise,

Take Florida, you have south Florida, Florida and The Panhandle (including Tallahassee), all would be reasonably large states with 8-10 million people, you'd probably go to 2-2-2 R, Swing, D on the senators. Chicagoland would probably be larger than Rhode Island, and the rest of the state is quite a robust state even absent the 800 lb gorilla, you'd go to 2-0-2 probably on the senators, but a fair potential for swing senators in the new chicagoless state of illinois

The main thing to be achieved would be a legislative understanding that existing rules governing state administrative stuff like utilities, transpo, education and water etc within the single state will continue to govern the severed states until such time as they can work out new arrangements. 

Texas could be divided into a a northwest, north east, central, southwest and southeast set of states. This would probably result in 2-4-4 R, swing, D on the senators. (Funny enough, most people don't seem to realize breaking up TX would result in a lot more safe D senate seats than Safe R senate seats.

California could be divided into four, LA county, Southern California, Tubman (Northern california plus sacramento and napa), and "California" which would be the breadbasket and bay area. Five is much harder to do in California without creating an unfairly less populous and wealthy state.  This would probably result in 2-2-4 R, swing D on the senators.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know what the original intent was. My point is that it no longer works. Frankly the idea that we should be beholden to the ideas of slave owning men who died hundreds of years ago is baffling to me.  

There are two methods of Amendment.  Both require unanimous ratification.  The other alternative is full on revolution.  How far do you want to take that idea, remember, you break it you buy it.

[Ormond]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There are two methods of Amendment.  Both require unanimous ratification.  The other alternative is full on revolution.  How far do you want to take that idea, remember, you break it you buy it.

I really don't expect to see any change in the Senate issue in my lifetime. But I do think it will be accomplished somehow at some point in the future.

And I think the idea that there will be some sort of "revolution" over this is a bit silly. You really think Vermont, North Dakota, and Wyoming would try to start a Civil War against California, Texas, and Florida over this? Doesn't seem likely to me. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Gaming the system and playing on the apathy generated by the system being gamed bothers me.  I’d be lieing if I said anything else.  How much gaming needs to take place before the effect is the same as rigging?

I can’t tell you were the line is Scot, but what I can guarantee for you is so long as it remains unclear, everyone in the game will  attempt to push it. Such is life.

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There are two methods of Amendment.  Both require unanimous ratification.  The other alternative is full on revolution.  How far do you want to take that idea, remember, you break it you buy it.

As far as Jefferson would have taken it, if need be.

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, every 60 years when the US hits a massive global recession the dems will hold the Senate for two to 4 years. 

Worth it if we can push through some Medicare-for-all or universal basic income in that time frame (and maybe swop out a couple of the older Supreme Court justices)

[Zorral]

22 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

no not really, what is far more impractical is allowing states to remain intact in spite of how big they are, population wise,

Take Florida, you have south Florida, Florida and The Panhandle (including Tallahassee), all would be reasonably large states with 8-10 million people, you'd probably go to 2-2-2 R, Swing, D on the senators. Chicagoland would probably be larger than Rhode Island, and the rest of the state is quite a robust state even absent the 800 lb gorilla, you'd go to 2-0-2 probably on the senators, but a fair potential for swing senators in the new chicagoless state of illinois

The main thing to be achieved would be a legislative understanding that existing rules governing state administrative stuff like utilities, transpo, education and water etc within the single state will continue to govern the severed states until such time as they can work out new arrangements. 

Texas could be divided into a a northwest, north east, central, southwest and southeast set of states. This would probably result in 2-4-4 R, swing, D on the senators. (Funny enough, most people don't seem to realize breaking up TX would result in a lot more safe D senate seats than Safe R senate seats.

California could be divided into four, LA county, Southern California, Tubman (Northern california plus sacramento and napa), and "California" which would be the breadbasket and bay area. Five is much harder to do in California without creating an unfairly less populous and wealthy state.  This would probably result in 2-2-4 R, swing D on the senators.

 

Why not reform the existing system, get serious about ridding ourselves of gerrymandering, voter suppression and voter oppression?  It would be less disruptive and more likely to have a better functioning system that is more honest, than creating a whole new system for the klepto autocratic oligarchies to corrupt and manipulate.

I have a great deal of terror of allowing a whole nuclear arsenal go to a single state that used to be part of Texas that is still run by the same people.

[felice]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Senate was never supposed to be proportional representation.  It was intended as a balm to the smaller States guaranteeing they would always have a voice in National politics.  Further it is the only provision of the US Constitution that demands unanimous ratification to change.  US Const. Art. V: "and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Is it possible to kick a State out of the Union if it won't agree to reforming the Senate?

[lokisnow]

30 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Why not reform the existing system, get serious about ridding ourselves of gerrymandering, voter suppression and voter oppression?  It would be less disruptive and more likely to have a better functioning system that is more honest, than creating a whole new system for the klepto autocratic oligarchies to corrupt and manipulate.

I have a great deal of terror of allowing a whole nuclear arsenal go to a single state that used to be part of Texas that is still run by the same people.

huh? it's still a state, no one's seceding, we are just adding stars to the flag.

and where is it? If it's not in northwest texas it would be in one of the swing or democrat dominated new texases.

[Kalbear]

Try a different approach. The reason we care at all about the Senate is that the Senate has massive amounts of power that the House does not, and of the two groups of Congress has by far the most power. 

That should change. The House needs to have significantly more power in things, the Senate less. (and the executive branch less as well). 

I think we also need to think about how to make congress work again. Adding more representation doesn't help that, it only slides it towards another group, and it means that the government is basically dysfunctional without all three branches owned by the same group. That is a systemic problem that isn't going to be solved by adding states or statehood. I'm all for DC and PR getting statehood, but that's because they deserve representation, not because it'll fix this. 

We need to have a system that encourages and rewards compromise. We need to have a system that creates more winners when people work together. 

Thanks for coming to my TED talk

[Guy Kilmore]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Try a different approach. The reason we care at all about the Senate is that the Senate has massive amounts of power that the House does not, and of the two groups of Congress has by far the most power. 

That should change. The House needs to have significantly more power in things, the Senate less. (and the executive branch less as well). 

I think we also need to think about how to make congress work again. Adding more representation doesn't help that, it only slides it towards another group, and it means that the government is basically dysfunctional without all three branches owned by the same group. That is a systemic problem that isn't going to be solved by adding states or statehood. I'm all for DC and PR getting statehood, but that's because they deserve representation, not because it'll fix this. 

We need to have a system that encourages and rewards compromise. We need to have a system that creates more winners when people work together. 

Thanks for coming to my TED talk

I mean, this goes back to bringing back earmarks.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Guy Kilmore said:

I mean, this goes back to bringing back earmarks.

Yes, that's definitely part of it. Bringing back blue slips is another. Having either an impartial or less partial way of nominating and securing judges needs to be another too. Repealing the Hastert rule should be a big part of this reform. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

38 minutes ago, felice said:

Is it possible to kick a State out of the Union if it won't agree to reforming the Senate?

There is no mechanism in the Constitution for such a process.  And Art. V says “no State will be denied equal sufferage in the Senate without its consent”.  I don’t know any other way to do that besides unanimous ratification.

[Guy Kilmore]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, that's definitely part of it. Bringing back blue slips is another. Having either an impartial or less partial way of nominating and securing judges needs to be another too. Repealing the Hastert rule should be a big part of this reform. 

By Blue Slips, you mean the Senate version, not the house version, right?  And the Hastert rule isn't anything official, a Speaker has to just go, f-it, and let it move forward as I understand it.  Two pretty easy changes.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, I was referring to the senate version. The House version seems like it's basically fine. 

[Kalbear]

Also thought this article from 2015 was a very prescient one: Why US Democracy is doomed.

Quote

 

University of Chicago political scientist William Howell told Prokop this was a "new frontier" for executive policymaking. Yale Law School's Bruce Ackerman says Obama used "a waiver provision for modest experiments and transformed it into a platform for the redesign of the statute." Obama's actions are clearly legal — but they are just as clearly a decision to creatively exploit the letter of the law to vastly expand the scope of executive power over the law.

Those who like these actions on their merits comfort themselves with the thought that these uses of executive power are pretty clearly allowed by the terms of the existing laws. This is true as far as it goes. But it's also the case that Obama (or some future president) could have his political opponents murdered on the streets of Washington and then issue pardons to the perpetrators. This would be considerably more legal than a Zelaya-style effort to use a plebiscite to circumvent congressional obstruction — just a lot more morally outrageous. In either case, however, the practical issue would be not so much what is legal, but what people, including the people with guns, would actually tolerate.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Trade wars changing dietary behavior of Americans:

http://www.micausa.org/u-s-pigs-bacon-ribs-trade-wars-cut-chicken-demand/

Quote

U.S. pigs out on bacon, ribs as trade wars cut chicken demand

Reuters, 11/13/2018 By Tom Polansek

CHICAGO, Nov 13 (Reuters) – Americans are losing their taste for chicken and eating more beef and pork as President Donald Trump’s trade wars reduce U.S. pork exports to China and Mexico and leave cheaper bacon and ribs at home.