US Politics: Flaming the Flamenco Flamingo

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The party in power will ignore things as long as they will get elected, which they will under almost every circumstance. 

Yep.  And that has nothing to do with congressional power.  See, we're learning!

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure that matters given the projections of the senate composition.

Again, this wasn't my point at all.  But in terms of "projections," spare me.  We can maybe try to handicap 2020 right now, but beyond that who the fuck knows.

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The things that he wants to do and is doing are entirely executive power

Sure.  Obama eventually gave up and did everything through unilateral action as well.  Know what happens when you do that?  It gets instantly rolled back when the other party takes control of the White House.  Welcome to American politics.

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The power of the purse also doesnt matter as much when money can be diverted to things he wants to do anyway and the courts say sure. 

Oh please, cite how much money Trump has diverted circumventing Congress.  The biggest example is his current plan to divert funds to build the wall - which is still a pittance of the federal budget btw - and he still hasn't done it yet, has he?  We'll see if he ever follows through on that, but my money's on no based on past behavior.

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The point everyone but you seems to get is that Congress has no way to functionally check the power of the executive branch, especially once the judiciary is in the pocket.

Well, thanks!  The point apparently I only get is that it's not Congress that doesn't have a way to functionally check the power of the executive branch, but rather Congressional Democrats have no way to functionally check the executive.

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

which is to simply not pass a budget and throw the us into a depression. 

Stop smoking Jace's weed.

[Fragile Bird]

I wonder if the farmers will pay back the money, the way the car companies did. 

[Jace, Extat]

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I wonder if the farmers will pay back the money, the way the car companies did. 

It's not a loan and it's not a bailout. It's an imperative large cash infusion to an industry that generates ALLLLLL American revenue and is too financially sound to become insolvent.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, DMC said:

Not sure I get the joke, but I fucking hate brandy.  Only time ever drank it was when me and my bro emptied out my parents' stash when I was 12-14.

Yeah, the stuff is gross. I’ve only had it a few times myself, and the only time I can remember drinking it was at a mock Skull and Bones party in college.

And the joke was just a lazy excuses to use a Simpson’s clip.  

Quote

Yeah that's not gonna happen.

It could, but if so I suspect the country would be in a really dark place. Regardless though, it does need to happen.

Quote

This is fundamentally fallacious empirical analysis.  If the demographics shift in such a way, assuming those states will be "red" at the time has absolutely no basis.

???

Young people are fleeing those states and packing themselves on the coasts. Middle America will continue to be red for a long time to come.

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Stop smoking Jace's weed.

And you stop injecting Jace’s snake venom into your eyeballs!  

[Bonnot OG]

It can’t happen here

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Young people are fleeing those states and packing themselves on the coasts. Middle America will continue to be red for a long time to come.

 

That's not entirely true, or at least not in a way that supports the idea that demographic change won't eventually create political changes in the Senate. The Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida are among the coastal states young people are moving to, and if they all turn reliably "blue" that will certainly affect the Senate's balance of power. Plus the "Middle America" states of Tennessee and Michigan are both attracting a lot of people of immediate post-college age (or at least were between 2013 and 2016), and Arizona is also in the top ten. (North Dakota was actually the #1 state for young adult growth in those years, but I would assume young adults moving to North Dakota would mostly have been oil field workers who wouldn't be as reliable Democratic voters as those moving to the other states.)

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/young-people-are-moving-to-these-10-states?slide=11

[argonak]

39 minutes ago, Ormond said:

That's not entirely true, or at least not in a way that supports the idea that demographic change won't eventually create political changes in the Senate. The Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida are among the coastal states young people are moving to, and if they all turn reliably "blue" that will certainly affect the Senate's balance of power. Plus the "Middle America" states of Tennessee and Michigan are both attracting a lot of people of immediate post-college age (or at least were between 2013 and 2016), and Arizona is also in the top ten. (North Dakota was actually the #1 state for young adult growth in those years, but I would assume young adults moving to North Dakota would mostly have been oil field workers who wouldn't be as reliable Democratic voters as those moving to the other states.)

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/young-people-are-moving-to-these-10-states?slide=11

If conservatives can't win democratically, they won't abandon conservatism, they'll abandon democracy.  Look at what they're doing with the voting machines and the way registration works.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, Ormond said:

That's not entirely true, or at least not in a way that supports the idea that demographic change won't eventually create political changes in the Senate. The Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida are among the coastal states young people are moving to, and if they all turn reliably "blue" that will certainly affect the Senate's balance of power. Plus the "Middle America" states of Tennessee and Michigan are both attracting a lot of people of immediate post-college age (or at least were between 2013 and 2016), and Arizona is also in the top ten. (North Dakota was actually the #1 state for young adult growth in those years, but I would assume young adults moving to North Dakota would mostly have been oil field workers who wouldn't be as reliable Democratic voters as those moving to the other states.)

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/young-people-are-moving-to-these-10-states?slide=11

I feel like that link proves my point. Two of the top ten states are ones I mentioned, and only two other ones look like they can flip in the near future (SC and AZ). Last I checked (which admittedly was a few years ago), a handful of states are growing rapidly, and their projected average is holding stable while a lot of small states are shrinking, relatively speaking, and their average age is increasing. This is going to lead to a lot of small red states controlling large blue states in the Senate. For example, CA has the same population as the smallest 22 states combined. CA is way more important than any of those smaller states, but they only get two votes in the Senate while they get 44 and most of them are red states. That’s why my argument is that the country is fundamentally broken at this point. We cannot sustain this.

[argonak]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I feel like that link proves my point. Two of the top ten states are ones I mentioned, and only two other ones look like they can flip in the near future (SC and AZ). Last I checked (which admittedly was a few years ago), a handful of states are growing rapidly, and their projected average is holding stable while a lot of small states are shrinking, relatively speaking, and their average age is increasing. This is going to lead to a lot of small red states controlling large blue states in the Senate. For example, CA has the same population as the smallest 22 states combined. CA is way more important than any of those smaller states, but they only get two votes in the Senate while they get 44 and most of them are red states. That’s why my argument is that the country is fundamentally broken at this point. We cannot sustain this.

Yes, the population disparity between states is getting insane, and its already fundamentally broken. Which is why the Republicans want to cripple and manipulate the census.

In any country, when the majority gets controlled by the minority, the majority will eventually respond by being destructive.  "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

[Ormond]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I feel like that link proves my point. Two of the top ten states are ones I mentioned, and only two other ones look like they can flip in the near future (SC and AZ). Last I checked (which admittedly was a few years ago), a handful of states are growing rapidly, and their projected average is holding stable while a lot of small states are shrinking, relatively speaking, and their average age is increasing. This is going to lead to a lot of small red states controlling large blue states in the Senate. For example, CA has the same population as the smallest 22 states combined. CA is way more important than any of those smaller states, but they only get two votes in the Senate while they get 44 and most of them are red states. That’s why my argument is that the country is fundamentally broken at this point. We cannot sustain this.

Look, that would only be true if there were smaller states which are now "blue" or "swing" which would become reliably "red" to offset a blue swing in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, and Arizona. Do you really think the small New England states are going to turn red any time soon in our present political climate? Do you think Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are going to become reliably "red"? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Look, that would only be true if there were smaller states which are now "blue" or "swing" which would become reliably "red" to offset a blue swing in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, and Arizona. Do you really think the small New England states are going to turn red any time soon in our present political climate? Do you think Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are going to become reliably "red"? 

No, but I do think middle America is going to hollow out, and that will continue to produce a lot of senators representing fewer and fewer people, and those senators will most likely be Republicans. You would need the aforementioned blue shift in certain states to offset that, and we’re still waiting to see that happen. And in the meantime, while those states are still red, Republicans will push harder than ever to disenfranchise citizens’ privilege to free and fair elections.

[Larry of the Lawn]

We need to combine some of those shitty red States.  Just make one fucking Dakota,  Missouri and Arkansas can be one state, Tennessee and Kentucky, Iowa and Indiana, Nebraska and Kansas.  

Bam Senate fixed.

[Maithanet]

18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

We need to combine some of those shitty red States.  Just make one fucking Dakota,  Missouri and Arkansas can be one state, Tennessee and Kentucky, Iowa and Indiana, Nebraska and Kansas.  

Bam Senate fixed.

Is this meant to be a joke? 

[Bonnot OG]

 

[Bonnot OG]

Also, we just need to get rid of the fucking electoral college. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Is this meant to be a joke? 

Mike Pence is going to declare war on Illinois for a corridor to the lake.

[Trebla]

WSJ reporting that during a phone call Trump asked the new Ukrainian President 8 times to work with Rudy Giuliani to provide dirt on Joe Biden's son.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176
 

Quote

 

President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ’s son, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, on a probe, according to people familiar with the matter.

“He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” whether allegations were true or not, one of the people said. Mr. Trump didn’t mention a provision of foreign aid to Ukraine on the call, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid-pro-quo for his cooperation on an investigation.

Mr. Giuliani in June and August met with top Ukrainian officials about the prospect of an investigation, he said in an interview. The Trump lawyer has suggested Mr. Biden as vice president worked to shield from investigation a Ukrainian gas company with ties to his son, Hunter Biden. A Ukrainian official earlier this year said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son.

After the July call between the two presidents, the Ukrainian government said Mr. Trump had congratulated the new president on his election and expressed hope that his government would push ahead with investigations and corruption probes that had stymied relations between the two countries.

The White House declined to comment. The Biden campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment. Last week, a Biden campaign spokesman said of Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to pressure Ukraine: “This is beneath us as Americans.”

Mr. Trump on Friday defended his July call with Mr. Zelensky as “totally appropriate” but declined to say whether he had asked the Ukrainian leader to investigate Mr. Biden, a former U.S. vice president. “It doesn’t matter what I discussed,” he said.

At the same time, he reiterated his call for an investigation into Mr. Biden’s effort as vice president to oust Ukraine’s prosecutor general. “Somebody ought to look into that," he told reporters.

 

Utterly shameless. Yet I highly doubt anything will become of this because the GOP is equally shameless and the Dems have no spine. 

[Ormond]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I feel like that link proves my point. Two of the top ten states are ones I mentioned, and only two other ones look like they can flip in the near future (SC and AZ). Last I checked (which admittedly was a few years ago), a handful of states are growing rapidly, and their projected average is holding stable while a lot of small states are shrinking, relatively speaking, and their average age is increasing. This is going to lead to a lot of small red states controlling large blue states in the Senate. For example, CA has the same population as the smallest 22 states combined. CA is way more important than any of those smaller states, but they only get two votes in the Senate while they get 44 and most of them are red states. That’s why my argument is that the country is fundamentally broken at this point. We cannot sustain this.

By the way (and somewhat to my own surprise) it is no longer true, if it was before, that the population of small states in the middle of the USA is aging faster than the rest of the country. The only state in the USA that has gotten younger on average since 2010 is North Dakota (that oil boom again), but most other Midwestern states are growing older at a rate LESS than the national average, and the map of counties in the USA that are growing younger shows that almost all of them are in the low population rural "Great Plains" area in the middle of the country. It looks to me like in the last decade any "hollowing out" of the Great Plains has been more from retirees moving away to warmer climates than from young people doing that.

https://considerable.com/median-age-us-states/

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2019/comm/median-age-change.html

[Gaston de Foix]

23 minutes ago, Trebla said:

WSJ reporting that during a phone call Trump asked the new Ukrainian President 8 times to work with Rudy Giuliani to provide dirt on Joe Biden's son.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176
 

Utterly shameless. Yet I highly doubt anything will become of this because the GOP is equally shameless and the Dems have no spine. 

The New York Times has more details: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

By the way (and somewhat to my own surprise) it is no longer true, if it was before, that the population of small states in the middle of the USA is aging faster than the rest of the country. The only state in the USA that has gotten younger on average since 2010 is North Dakota (that oil boom again), but most other Midwestern states are growing older at a rate LESS than the national average, and the map of counties in the USA that are growing younger shows that almost all of them are in the low population rural "Great Plains" area in the middle of the country. It looks to me like in the last decade any "hollowing out" of the Great Plains has been more from retirees moving away to warmer climates than from young people doing that.

https://considerable.com/median-age-us-states/

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2019/comm/median-age-change.html

Interesting, and not what I would expect at all (though it's not surprising at all that ND got younger and that UT is the youngest state). That would suggest that either they are having babies at a higher rate or the fears of youth flight because of college are overblown. Regardless though, the projections I've seen cited indicate that in the future more Senators will represent fewer people overall, and that those states are largely red states. Just for example, Democrats represent roughly 40 million more people than Republicans despite not controlling the Senate. That's not a good indicator of a healthy democracy, and it will only get worse as time passes. It will never happen, but the Senate should be reorganized to only have one senator per state with the remaining 50 seats split up based on the population size of each state. In this world, CA gets seven seats in the Senate, which seems far more appropriate than the current situation.