U.S. Politics: You Didn't Think It Would Be So Easy, Did You?

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Surprise!

 

Yawn.

[lokisnow]

so, what are the odds that a yearish from now, Clarence Thomas announces his retirement in summer2020 to try to excite the republican base into the same 2016 proTrump voting that the Scalia vacancy whipped up.  McConnell shepherds the nominee through the process, but then doesn't hold a vote, knowing he can always schedule it for after the november election, and this tactic/vacancy will maximize republican voter turnout.

And if Trump replaces Thomas, that would mean we have at minimum 16 years before a republican appointed judge is replaced, and with how good healthcare is for rich white men, probably more  before any of those five are replaced. John Roberts would only be 80 in 2035, Alito would be 85, lots of good white male healthcare years left for both, most likely.

yeah, if Thomas retires, democrats could win the next 5 presidential elections and not replace any republican supreme court judge. woohoo.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I hate to say it, but the SC is probably a lost cause for liberals. Despite demographic trends strongly favoring them, where those people will actually live will be a huge problem. In roughly 20 years, 30% of the country's population will select roughly 70 senators, and given that these voters will be older and whiter, absent a massive cultural change, Republicans will likely dominate the Senate for years to come. That doesn't mean Democrats will not be in the majority again for the foreseeable future, but I think those windows for opportunities will be narrow. 

[Jace, Extat]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I hate to say it, but the SC is probably a lost cause for liberals. Despite demographic trends strongly favoring them, where those people will actually live will be a huge problem. In roughly 20 years, 30% of the country's population will select roughly 70 senators, and given that these voters will be older and whiter, absent a massive cultural change, Republicans will likely dominate the Senate for years to come. That doesn't mean Democrats will not be in the majority again for the foreseeable future, but I think those windows for opportunities will be narrow. 

Starting to sink in, is it?

[HoodedCrow]

Get a Dem in as POTUS.

Increase the number of Supremes...there is presidence.

Trump has shown us the way. Declare the unbalanced SC a National Emergency. 

Make your picks.

 

[lokisnow]

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I hate to say it, but the SC is probably a lost cause for liberals. Despite demographic trends strongly favoring them, where those people will actually live will be a huge problem. In roughly 20 years, 30% of the country's population will select roughly 70 senators, and given that these voters will be older and whiter, absent a massive cultural change, Republicans will likely dominate the Senate for years to come. That doesn't mean Democrats will not be in the majority again for the foreseeable future, but I think those windows for opportunities will be narrow. 

yup, this is why in the unlikely event (I think probably sub 1%) that democrats ever regain a senate majority, we need a legislative dictum that any state larger than 9 million people must break up, so long as no newly created state is smaller than 4.5 million people.

8 californias, five texases, etc etc

and statehood for DC and puerto rico.

[Martell Spy]

51 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

yup, this is why in the unlikely event (I think probably sub 1%) that democrats ever regain a senate majority, we need a legislative dictum that any state larger than 9 million people must break up, so long as no newly created state is smaller than 4.5 million people.

8 californias, five texases, etc etc

and statehood for DC and puerto rico.

Well, we could try alternative tactics. Or we could go with the plan of allowing John Roberts to rule as King of America until his death, followed by an even more radical Republican ruling. 

I do think it matters what the SC does though, especially on issues such as voting rights and abortion. There was no real reason to even contemplate things like court packing before Kennedy stepped down. There were lots of shitty rulings, such as Citizens United, but things were vaguely tolerable on a whole. It also matters if the SC starts just spiking all liberal economic/healthcare legislation. At that point we really don't have checks and balances. 

Also a possibility, Executive action, such as declaring the healthcare crisis an emergency and using emergency powers.

[mcbigski]

On 5/19/2019 at 11:50 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Nice gesture, but doesn't deal with the problem of student debt, and too bad if you were class of 2018 or will be class of 2020.

I'll credit this as being more than just an ego movie by Robert Smith if it actually leads to long term meaningful change. I think I would prefer to suggest that he offer every student at the school a $1000 annual scholarship for every year they are at college, every year from now on, as long as you get a passing grade average for the year. That way the debt burden of every student now and into the future is reduced by a few thousand dollars.

No.  The University would just raise tuition, juke the stats to ensure more passing grades, and capture the revenue.  (The bureaucracy is expanding...)  At least by making the offer after the final semester's tuition, that can't happen.  The cost of college isnt going up two to three times faster than general inflation because we re not shoveling money into the system fast enough.

 

On 5/22/2019 at 10:56 PM, Triskele said:

Not like I'm Paul Krugman or anything, but I have been very surprised that the economy on the main indicators has stayed so solid given all of the trade bluster.  But perhaps it's only just beginning to really come home to roost.  

Idk when i recall Krugman's post election comments he's got to be as surprised as you are.  Less regulation and lower taxes are, at least to we simpletons, stimulative.  If only Congress could work more graft from those ideas than their alternatives, itd be our natural state!

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Not like I'm Paul Krugman or anything, but I have been very surprised that the economy on the main indicators has stayed so solid given all of the trade bluster.  But perhaps it's only just beginning to really come home to roost.  

Near worthless personal anecdote: I deliver things for a living (USPS contractor).  Despite all the trade war talk, the flood of cheap Chinese imports has not even slowed down over the past year or so.  If anything, it has increased in volume. This is not just me, it applies to the other postal contractors and USPS employees I know.   More, the prices of this 'stuff' has either remained about the same or even declined slightly.  Granted, the trade war is undoubtedly affecting the prices of many things, but I have severe doubts that the increases are noteworthy for a great many items.

[Mexal]

8 hours ago, Triskele said:

Alan Lichtman, the professor who had a lot of coverage for his model which has been really strong in elections and predicted Trump will win, bases his system on 13 "keys."

He says that Dems should probably impeach because it gets one of the keys in their favor and possibly another.  Food for thought.  

Dems should impeach because it's the right thing to do. Hold public hearings and air his corruption. They're fucking terrible at this shit. When Justin Amash is the only Congressman saying something sensible, shit is wrong.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Starting to sink in, is it?

Nah, I’ve been saying this for a while. One only needs to look at state by state populations and realize that the smallest 22 states combined population is the same as California’s. If you want to figure out why are government is broken, start there.  

14 hours ago, lokisnow said:

yup, this is why in the unlikely event (I think probably sub 1%) that democrats ever regain a senate majority, we need a legislative dictum that any state larger than 9 million people must break up, so long as no newly created state is smaller than 4.5 million people.

8 californias, five texases, etc etc

and statehood for DC and puerto rico.

I don’t think that’s realistic at all, and you won’t like the results anyways. Currently those two states give you two Democrats and two Republicans. I suspect a majority from the new 13 states would actually go Republican. The better solution, that in theory could actually happen, is to move to 18 year term limits. That way every president gets two nominees per term in office.

[Mexal]

Mueller speaking at 11am, first time in over 2 years. WH was given a heads up yesterday. No Q&A afterwards. Doubt it's going to be that interesting given it's a DOJ sanctioned statement. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Mueller speaking at 11am, first time in over 2 years. WH was given a heads up yesterday. No Q&A afterwards. Doubt it's going to be that interesting given it's a DOJ sanctioned statement. 

Mueller provides a tricky conversation. In a situation like this, do you want the Boy Scout who will follow the letter of the law or someone who is willing to play a bit fast and loose when it’s called for? I always thought you wanted the former, but in hindsight the latter may have been more useful.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don’t think that’s realistic at all, and you won’t like the results anyways. Currently those two states give you two Democrats and two Republicans. I suspect a majority from the new 13 states would actually go Republican. The better solution, that in theory could actually happen, is to move to 18 year term limits. That way every president gets two nominees per term in office.

I agree it is unrealistic, but there is no way those 13 states would go primarily Republican.  I remember I saw something (538 maybe?) about splitting California into 3 and Texas into 5, and it had CA as 4 Democratic and 2 swing/lean Dem Senators, and Texas as 4 Democratic, 4 Republican and 2 swing Senators.  You know California has 46 Democratic Congresspeople compared to 7 Republicans?  There's no way to divide California up and get a bunch of Republican Senators. 

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Mueller provides a tricky conversation. In a situation like this, do you want the Boy Scout who will follow the letter of the law or someone who is willing to play a bit fast and loose when it’s called for? I always thought you wanted the former, but in hindsight the latter may have been more useful.

I'm fine with the former but I do believe the former needs to be in a public hearing where he can explain his findings. That's one of the reasons I believe in impeachment. Hold public hearings and let this shit be visible.

[Fez]

15 hours ago, lokisnow said:

so, what are the odds that a yearish from now, Clarence Thomas announces his retirement in summer2020 to try to excite the republican base into the same 2016 proTrump voting that the Scalia vacancy whipped up.  McConnell shepherds the nominee through the process, but then doesn't hold a vote, knowing he can always schedule it for after the november election, and this tactic/vacancy will maximize republican voter turnout.

And if Trump replaces Thomas, that would mean we have at minimum 16 years before a republican appointed judge is replaced, and with how good healthcare is for rich white men, probably more  before any of those five are replaced. John Roberts would only be 80 in 2035, Alito would be 85, lots of good white male healthcare years left for both, most likely.

yeah, if Thomas retires, democrats could win the next 5 presidential elections and not replace any republican supreme court judge. woohoo.

I think Thomas retiring is almost certainly a net benefit for Democrats. Yes, he gets replaced by a younger Republican, but at 70, he probably still has a lot of years left if he wants. And Thomas is basically the worst case scenario of a Republican justice, he's almost always quite a lot further to the right than any of the other conservatives and he's very likely rather corrupt as well. He never recuses himself from cases that his wife's work is involved with, for instance.

I'd absolutely take 30 years from another Gorsuch or Kavanaugh versus another 15 years of Thomas.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I agree it is unrealistic, but there is no way those 13 states would go primarily Republican.  I remember I saw something (538 maybe?) about splitting California into 3 and Texas into 5, and it had CA as 4 Democratic and 2 swing/lean Dem Senators, and Texas as 4 Democratic, 4 Republican and 2 swing Senators.  You know California has 46 Democratic Congresspeople compared to 7 Republicans?  There's no way to divide California up and get a bunch of Republican Senators. 

Maybe if you keep it to three, but five would mean you’d have NorCal, South Central, Southern and two random states based on Eastern Cali. NorCal and South Central would give you four Democrats and Southern would give you two Republicans. It’s not unthinkable, based on a few different ways to carve them up, that the two Eastern states would give you four Republicans. If you expand that to Loki’s eight, I think it would go even more in the favor of Republicans.

Texas is really tricky. I could see it play out as you described, but I could also see just two Democrats coming out of the greater Austin area and then maybe there’d be one other state that is competitive while the other three states are deep red.

Ultimately I think splitting states up would be a terrible idea, and I think it would spread across the nation with Democrats taking huge losses. What we need is a Constitutional Convention, but we are not at a place where that can occur in a healthy fashion.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I'm fine with the former but I do believe the former needs to be in a public hearing where he can explain his findings. That's one of the reasons I believe in impeachment. Hold public hearings and let this shit be visible.

In a vacuum, sure. But that’s not the case here. For example, Mueller literally gave Jr. a pass because he deemed him too ignorant to know that what he was doing was wrong. Given the weight of the situation, Mueller was not the man for the job.

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In a vacuum, sure. But that’s not the case here. For example, Mueller literally gave Jr. a pass because he deemed him too ignorant to know that what he was doing was wrong. Given the weight of the situation, Mueller was not the man for the job.

But his job was governed by specific DOJ rules. He gave Jr a pass because he couldn't prove Jr knew the laws and in a court of law where you prosecute said crime, that matters since it's a major deciding factor on whether it is a crime or not. Drawing up an indictment just so he can lose in a court room doesn't help anyone. At the end of the day, the actions are still explained and bad. It's up to the Dems to do something about that (i.e., hold public hearings and get this shit on TV). It's their fault they haven't, not Mueller's.

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe if you keep it to three, but five would mean you’d have NorCal, South Central, Southern and two random states based on Eastern Cali. NorCal and South Central would give you four Democrats and Southern would give you two Republicans. It’s not unthinkable, based on a few different ways to carve them up, that the two Eastern states would give you four Republicans. If you expand that to Loki’s eight, I think it would go even more in the favor of Republicans.

This is mostly academic, but why would you be creating two eastern states, when there are virtually no people in those states?  The whole point of splitting up California is to take an administrative superstate and create states that are more manageable.  If you are splitting up the state into 8 states that are roughly even population, you're probably going to get at most two of the eight that are Republican leaning, and that's assuming that the lines are drawn in a specifically nonpartisan manner.