Jump to content

US Politics: A Feast for Crows


DMC

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

There was also this other headline I stumblend upon.

Biden: I am the most qualified candidate to run.

Which somehow sent a chill down my spine. Nothing against crazy uncle Joe, but I think he is simply too old to run in 2020. His chance was 2016, but there things were simply not meant to be for him, with this death of his son and so on.

But him running in 2020 feels a bit like of a re-run of the Hillary 2016 campaign - in the sense of the political spirit of elections past shows up on stage. Feel free to call me an ageist on that matter; I won't be denying it.

I don't have numbers on this, but doesn't it kind of seem like the nominee is rarely the person everyone thinks it's going to be leading into the pre-primary season? With such a crowded field I imagine that is going to be more true next year than it ever was. The conventional wisdom in the DNC these days seems to be to push fresh faces out, and god love Biden, but he ain't fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Definitely not ignoring the efforts going on in Wisconsin nor Michigan.  Just not much to say other than "sucks."

3 hours ago, Fez said:

I think the easiest Democratic path at this point is the Clinton states+PA+MI+AZ. 

I still think it's much more likely the Democrat wins Wisconsin but loses Arizona in 2020 than the Democrat winning Arizona but losing Wisconsin.

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I'm strongly against expanding the House as I believe that increasing the size of the body would (further) diminish its power and further empower the executive branch.  I actually think it is already probably already too big to be all that effective.  That said, I don't agree with how Senators are apportioned either.

I share similar concerns, but as Scot and I have discussed before I'd be fine with, say, doubling the number of members of the House.  UK, France, Germany all have chambers with ~600-700 members and they seem to get along fine.  While I'd be very worried about the efficacy of a thousands-member legislature, I think something like 870 is a fair compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I don't have numbers on this, but doesn't it kind of seem like the nominee is rarely the person everyone thinks it's going to be leading into the pre-primary season?

When there's a clear favorite (e.g. Hillary 2016, Dubya 2000, any VP), the clear favorite usually wins.  The only clear favorite I can think of that lost is Clinton in 2008.  Hell, McCain was what I'd describe as a "weak" favorite in the 2008 GOP primary, his campaign nearly collapsed early (I recall reading an article in September 2007 that said he was flying coach by himself), and he still wound up the nominee.  However, when it's a clear "open field" (e.g. Dems 1992, Dems 2004, GOP 2016), then yeah, of course the eventual nominee can be someone unexpected.  I'd say 2020 is a clear open field for Dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

I only had time this morning to watch the start of the Bush funeral, moving the casket to the hearse and then the wait in the cathedral. But one of the commentators talked about HW saying he was the most qualified candidate to run in the election, and that he had been very bitter at first over losing to Clinton for that reason. Biden’s comment is like an echo of that, and I would not be too surprised if the results were the same.

NOt sure why draw me into this whole was Bush Sr. evil debate, I am really neutral on him. Most of the evil was done by the two term GOP presidents Ronnie and Jr. Compared to those two, he was close to sainthood. So from the 6 POTUS in my life time, he makes it into the top three. (having checked the dates, technically speaking I would need to make a top 7 list, but since this is a mere matter of weeks I'll simply discard Carter).

As for the racism bit, yes, I think there probably was some racism and homophobia in him, but not more than I would expect from a white man of his generation.

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

That reminds of something I’ve been meaning to say about hatred for HW. Whoever you thought was the low man on the presidential totem pole, Trump is setting a new standard that presidents will be measured against.

And there we have reached the very bottom of my list. I like to think of Donnie Dipshit as an outlier, rather than a new standard. I mean, we are not comparing every German politcian to Hitler either, are we?

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Imagine what the situation would be in Europe today if East Germany had been basically abandoned and left to pull itself up by it’s bootstraps? It would be a Russian satellite by now. 

Well... there are some parts in the East that basically have played that part. It's a bit like the US rustbelt forgotten angry old men thing (a bit simplified but not far off). And a petty part of me thinks, rebuilding a wall around those toxic areas might not be the worst idea. But this is getting way off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Definitely not ignoring the efforts going on in Wisconsin nor Michigan.  Just not much to say other than "sucks."

I still think it's much more likely the Democrat wins Wisconsin but loses Arizona in 2020 than the Democrat winning Arizona but losing Wisconsin.

I share similar concerns, but as Scot and I have discussed before I'd be fine with, say, doubling the number of members of the House.  UK, France, Germany all have chambers with ~600-700 members and they seem to get along fine.  While I'd be very worried about the efficacy of a thousands-member legislature, I think something like 870 is a fair compromise.

 

While I think representation in the 1:100,000 to 1:150,000 in the house is the natural ideal, I'd be fine with a compromise that set it as a formula: such that the ratio is 1:X where X = Y/3 and Y=the average population of the five states with the smallest populations

That would be Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota

For a total population of 3.386M or an average of 677,309

677,309/3 = 225,770 persons per House of Representative seats, or 1365 seats

***

I'd also support the following to happen:

Any state whose population is greater than Z*2 where Z is the average population of all the states must divide itself into smaller states, using existing county and/or city boundary lines.

None of the smaller states may have populations smaller than Z*0.9.

None of the smaller states may be larger than Z*1.5, excepting if such a state cannot be created because existing city and/or county boundaries cause it to be larger than Z1.5.

If a city or county is larger than Z*2, it must be divided as evenly as possible considering both area and population and GDP while using streets highways or rivers as boundary lines, and each line must be a minimum of 1 mile long.

(the latter two are basically the city/county of los angeles exception)

so if Z = 308.156M/50 then Z=6,163,127 and Z*2 equals 12.3M people.

that means the top 7 states would need to subdivide into states not less than 5.5M in size and not more than 9.25M in size for about 19 to 20 states instead of 7.

so that means East and West Pennsylvania, the state of Chicago and of Illinois, Pan Handle Florida, North Florida and South Florida, New York and NYC and Long Island, North Texas East Texas South Texas West Texas, and Southern Cal and Los Angeles 1 and Los Angeles 2 and California and Northern California.

technically you could get six states out of California, but 5 would be easier to fit within the 0.9Z to 1.5Z parameters. And Tx might have just enough people to make five states possible, after the 2020 census they should definitely be good to divide into five.

If this were to recur with the new numbers, it'd cause Ohio to split which would then cause Michigan and Georgia to split, which would then cause North Carolina to Split resulting in a healthy 67 states. 

but then the splitting would be done until the next census at least, when one would find out if any states had grown enough to result in more required splits.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

 

While I think representation in the 1:100,000 to 1:150,000 in the house is the natural ideal, I'd be fine with a compromise that set it as a formula: such that the ratio is 1:X where X = Y/3 and Y=the average population of the five states with the smallest populations

That would be Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota

For a total population of 3.386M or an average of 677,309

677,309/3 = 225,770 persons per House of Representative seats, or 1365 seats

***

I'd also support the following to happen:

Any state whose population is greater than Z*2 where Z is the average population of all the states must divide itself into smaller states, using existing county and/or city boundary lines.

None of the smaller states may have populations smaller than Z*0.9.

None of the smaller states may be larger than Z*1.5, excepting if such a state cannot be created because existing city and/or county boundaries cause it to be larger than Z1.5.

If a city or county is larger than Z*2, it must be divided as evenly as possible considering both area and population and GDP while using streets highways or rivers as boundary lines, and each line must be a minimum of 1 mile long.

(the latter two are basically the city/county of los angeles exception)

so if Z = 308.156M/50 then Z=6,163,127 and Z*2 equals 12.3M people.

that means the top 7 states would need to subdivide into states not less than 5.5M in size and not more than 9.25M in size for about 19 to 20 states instead of 7.

so that means East and West Pennsylvania, the state of Chicago and of Illinois, Pan Handle Florida, North Florida and South Florida, New York and NYC and Long Island, North Texas East Texas South Texas West Texas, and Southern Cal and Los Angeles 1 and Los Angeles 2 and California and Northern California.

technically you could get six states out of California, but 5 would be easier to fit within the 0.9Z to 1.5Z parameters. And Tx might have just enough people to make five states possible, after the 2020 census they should definitely be good to divide into five.

If this were to recur with the new numbers, it'd cause Ohio to split which would then cause Michigan and Georgia to split, which would then cause North Carolina to Split resulting in a healthy 67 states. 

but then the splitting would be done until the next census at least, when one would find out if any states had grown enough to result in more required splits.

 

 

Considering states are their own administrative entities, providing significant numbers and amounts of services to their citizens (at least, in some states). This splitting sounds like an impossible bureaucratic nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I don't have numbers on this, but doesn't it kind of seem like the nominee is rarely the person everyone thinks it's going to be leading into the pre-primary season? With such a crowded field I imagine that is going to be more true next year than it ever was. The conventional wisdom in the DNC these days seems to be to push fresh faces out, and god love Biden, but he ain't fresh.

Only sometimes, and only usually during incumbent first term years. Clinton and Obama were both big names for 2008 (though many thought Obama was running too soon), Clinton was obviously the big one in 2016, Gore was considered to be a major front runner in 2000 (as was Bush). Kerry was a bit of a surprise I suppose, and Clinton in 1992 was a bit of a surprise, but Bush 1 and Dole both were not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Fez said:

Considering states are their own administrative entities, providing significant numbers and amounts of services to their citizens (at least, in some states). This splitting sounds like an impossible bureaucratic nightmare.

but worth it considering the upside that lots more states is the only way to definitely improve the senate. 

You could write a statute that allows states to maintain a supra-state entity overseeing the division for at least twenty years (with a possible extension of another twenty) to give them ample time to sort out the power, water, roads etc.

And you say Bureaucratic nightmare, and I hear, "major jobs program immune from robots and outsourcing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Triskele said:

Yeah, that's the thing.  There really is an "abolish the Senate" movement.  I don't claim to know how to gauge how potent it is beyond just saying that it's fairly impotent given that the Senate itself would have to approve.  But other than that, it does exist. 

New Zealand's upper house voted itself out of existence. So it's possible. Though that was in very different political times. And I think it's still the only legislative body that has voted itself out of existence. So it seems pretty unlikely it would happen again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DMC said:

Oh this is a bunch of horseshit.  Why does AOC not have a "strong grasp" on the policy argument and more experienced MCs do?  That entails a ludicrous assumption that MCs give a shit about the same policy as much as Ocasio-Cortez.  She's 29 not 12.  I was more qualified at 29 to be a member of Congress than 80 percent of the people sitting there.  She's immediately demonstrated better political instincts than the vast majority of incumbent MCs - most of which have the same ambition as everybody in Washington.  Ocasio-Cortez is a better politician than you.  Stop pretending you know what's best for her.  As I said, I'm worried about over-exposure.  But that's it.

A lot of them do care. The problem is that the ones who put little energy into studying policy are also the ones that love the camera, so we can get a distorted sense of reality. And while you were probably more qualified at 29 than many legislators, you're a statistical outlier, having a master's degree in the field and being a college professor at the time. I just looked up her bio and hell, I'm likely more qualified than her if you want to compare resumes. But yes, she is a better politician, obviously, because she won a seat in Congress while all I've ever won a seat in is the student government at my university. 

The reason her tweet was problematic to me is that it likely signals one of three things: She hasn't built her policy team yet, she has and didn't run it by them or she has, she did and they approved it. None of those are good scenarios. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Free reminder that Bernie Sanders is still the Junior Senator from Vermont. I guess that due to the accident of serving with someone who has been in the position for 44 years while Sanders has only been in Congress for 27, (and only in the Senate for 11, the fucking newcomer) he still hasn't earned the right to speak yet.

Sorry Bernie, maybe one of these days  Tywin will think you have the right to speak. Suck it up until then, and get off my lawn, you damn kid.

It's almost like making assumptions about people based on a job title or some other description is stupid and ignores a huge amount of context.

:P

You know the quote simply means that you should take your time and learn the ins and outs of it before you make waves, which is prudent advice at most jobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

but worth it considering the upside that lots more states is the only way to definitely improve the senate. 

You could write a statute that allows states to maintain a supra-state entity overseeing the division for at least twenty years (with a possible extension of another twenty) to give them ample time to sort out the power, water, roads etc.

And you say Bureaucratic nightmare, and I hear, "major jobs program immune from robots and outsourcing."

The only way splitting states would work is if you had a minimum threshold that prevented states from continuing to break apart at a certain point.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing requiring that the senate have any actual power which can't be overridden by a normal amendment though, right? Like, you could in theory have all the states have representation in the senate, and the senate can do fuckall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gads you guyz and your determination that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez must put up with you shaking a finger in her face for something that -- sheesh.  You look bad, you guys, really bad.  

 Anyway, she's carrying on carrying on, rather than paying attention to your finger-shaking and begging to be forgiven.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/419775-ocasio-cortez-confirms-she-will-pay-interns-at-least-15-an-hour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A lot of them do care. The problem is that the ones who put little energy into studying policy are also the ones that love the camera, so we can get a distorted sense of reality. And while you were probably more qualified at 29 than many legislators, you're a statistical outlier, having a master's degree in the field and being a college professor at the time. I just looked up her bio and hell, I'm likely more qualified than her if you want to compare resumes. But yes, she is a better politician, obviously, because she won a seat in Congress while all I've ever won a seat in is the student government at my university. 

The reason her tweet was problematic to me is that it likely signals one of three things: She hasn't built her policy team yet, she has and didn't run it by them or she has, she did and they approved it. None of those are good scenarios. 

Re: the bolded?  Why is she less qualified than you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

As a result, the president has access to emergency powers contained in 123 statutory provisions, as recently calculated by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, where I work. These laws address a broad range of matters, from military composition to agricultural exports to public contracts. For the most part, the president is free to use any of them; the National Emergencies Act doesn’t require that the powers invoked relate to the nature of the emergency. Even if the crisis at hand is, say, a nationwide crop blight, the president may activate the law that allows the secretary of transportation to requisition any privately owned vessel at sea. Many other laws permit the executive branch to take extraordinary action under specified conditions, such as war and domestic upheaval, regardless of whether a national emergency has been declared.

This legal regime for emergencies—ambiguous constitutional limits combined with a rich well of statutory emergency powers—would seem to provide the ingredients for a dangerous encroachment on American civil liberties. Yet so far, even though presidents have often advanced dubious claims of constitutional authority, egregious abuses on the scale of the Japanese American internment or the post-9/11 torture program have been rare, and most of the statutory powers available during a national emergency have never been used.


But what’s to guarantee that this president, or a future one, will show the reticence of his predecessors? To borrow from Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent in Korematsu v. United States, the 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans, each emergency power “lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.”

 

What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency
From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lokisnow said:

I'd also support the following to happen: [snip]

This is a pretty compelling and well thought out plan as far as fantasy government goes.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The reason her tweet was problematic to me is that it likely signals one of three things: She hasn't built her policy team yet, she has and didn't run it by them or she has, she did and they approved it. None of those are good scenarios. 

My guess is the second.  Or at least I hope.  That does speak to the concern of overexposure, or at least what she can do to control it while retaining the accessibility that's a big part of her appeal.  I just think your first post came off as patronizing.  And the problem with saying the policy wonks are drowned out by the ones that love the camera is that a lot more members are more interested in the camera than becoming policy wonks these days (which of course is almost a requirement with how expensive campaigns have gotten).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

:P

You know the quote simply means that you should take your time and learn the ins and outs of it before you make waves, which is prudent advice at most jobs. 

Yeah, but that doesn’t mean I can’t give you shit about your word choice and phrasing, not to mention the full implications of what you’re saying, especially if imprecise words/factual grasp is what you were criticizing someone else for in the first place. ;)

I hope there’s no hard feelings though, despite probably being a little snarkier than intended, I didn’t mean any harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

This fits a familiar pattern. Trump ratchets up hostilities with foreign governments in an attempt to negotiate (or renegotiate) deals that are more favorable to the U.S. But then he agrees only to superficial changes, which he nonetheless presents as historic wins that only he could accomplish. It’s a reminder that his real skill as a businessman—and now a politician—was never in making deals, but in marketing himself as a dealmaker. While that proved effective on the campaign trail in 2016, it may come back to haunt him in 2020.

The Art of the Underwhelming Deal
Trump touts agreements with foreign leaders as historic accomplishments, but they're just rebranded versions of the status quo.

https://newrepublic.com/article/152498/trump-china-art-underwhelming-deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...