Jump to content

Archived

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

Fragile Bird

US Politics: Flaming the Flamenco Flamingo

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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. 

It's like we're living in some mutated version of Groundhog's Day. The scandals change, but the aftermath is always the same.

First, deny, say behavior was perfect and the claims are just partisan attacks.

Second, float that the behavior, if it did happen, was perfectly fine.

Third, have everyone around you do the same.

Fourth, Rudy takes it one step further and suggest the behavior did happen and it's great.

Finally, Trump admits to it in some form, says who cares, then engages in his next scandal.

Repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

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

It's about integrity in warm water ports

 

Eta: whole reason Pence signed on as VP was he misheard everyone saying Trump was into watersports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Trebla said:


 

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

This might be the best two sentence summary of contemporary US politics yet 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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"? 

I think this is a bit lacking of data.

The red state Republicans are already 40 of the 100 total senators. Of the divided ones, Alabama, Ohio, West Virginia and Montana are continuing to turn redder or are already very red with no sign of change. 

So we've got basically 46 senator seats that have very little shot of dem senators in the future. One could consider Florida as a better shot, save that it just got rid of its incumbent dem senator with fairly negative republican support, and Rubio is the other senator; chances are good Florida is going redder as well, not bluer. So we're already at 48 seats that are reliably red or will be, meaning things like a filibuster-proof majority for dems is virtually impossible except in national crisis. 

Now you're right that in the near future, places like Arizona and Colorado should both be solidly dem or rarely republican. That's cool and all, but it means for dems to get a majority they need all of those states AND they need Maine AND they need Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - and all of those states are also becoming more red. 

And as to the blue swing in Georgia or South Carolina - I'll believe it when I see it. Same goes for Texas. Given that we're seeing MASSIVE polling place reduction in those places, I don't think they're going blue any time soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So first you bang your razor on the sidewalk, to get it ready to put in the rain barrel where it can rust.  But according to Biden a Corn Pop then interrupts and must be chained.    

Two things.   The mention of banging in this story will divide the Clinton democrats.  When Hillary supporters hear 'you have to bang it,' they will immediately knash their teeth, whereas Bill's faithful will perk their ears up and their faces will automatically brighten.  Trump voters are listening fascinated at that point, hoping for clues to how they might become as rich and successful as Joe.   Second, the name Corn Pop has sexual connotations and suggests that not only did he ruthlessly control the flow of popcorn in that town but perhaps also demanded favors in exchange for bags of said popcorn.   This is not the version of the story that ran in the Times, which makes this version of events instantly more credible.

And if you're calling for the end of electoral, you're probably the reason the college was installed.   

There's something about Pence and watersports that feels right.   So I won't take issue with that.

I would have asked that Ukranian guy to help out Rudy four or five times, but then I probably would have gotten uncomfortable with the sheer repetitions of it and I'd stop asking.  Trump asked 3 more times after reaching that point, which shows why he's potus and I'm not.   

Stop getting wet over military deaths, Jace!  Try clown porn like the rest of us.

You guys care more about Trump than I do by far.  I do other things.   Stroking my bust of Trump in the foyer takes up no more than 3 minutes in my daily routine, similar to the time spent brushing the teethes.  Then, it's on to non-executive branch activities.  Have you considered that hobby where you make fruit preserves in jars?   Or do you live near a Dave & Buster's.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

So first you bang your razor on the sidewalk, to get it ready to put in the rain barrel where it can rust.  But according to Biden a Corn Pop then interrupts and must be chained.    

Two things.   The mention of banging in this story will divide the Clinton democrats.  When Hillary supporters hear 'you have to bang it,' they will immediately knash their teeth, whereas Bill's faithful will perk their ears up and their faces will automatically brighten.  Trump voters are listening fascinated at that point, hoping for clues to how they might become as rich and successful as Joe.   Second, the name Corn Pop has sexual connotations and suggests that not only did he ruthlessly control the flow of popcorn in that town but perhaps also demanded favors in exchange for bags of said popcorn.   This is not the version of the story that ran in the Times, which makes this version of events instantly more credible.

And if you're calling for the end of electoral, you're probably the reason the college was installed.   

There's something about Pence and watersports that feels right.   So I won't take issue with that.

I would have asked that Ukranian guy to help out Rudy four or five times, but then I probably would have gotten uncomfortable with the sheer repetitions of it and I'd stop asking.  Trump asked 3 more times after reaching that point, which shows why he's potus and I'm not.   

Stop getting wet over military deaths, Jace!  Try clown porn like the rest of us.

You guys care more about Trump than I do by far.  I do other things.   Stroking my bust of Trump in the foyer takes up no more than 3 minutes in my daily routine, similar to the time spent brushing the teethes.  Then, it's on to non-executive branch activities.  Have you considered that hobby where you make fruit preserves in jars?   Or do you live near a Dave & Buster's.   

 

Excellent post, would read again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Is this meant to be a joke? 

Yes, but he got the punchline wrong. The states that should be combined are Iowa, Idaho and Ohio. as everyone pretty much lumps them together anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

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

Open question for anyone because I really just don't know enough. If the House were truly representational and didn't have it's numbers capped, would it change EC outcomes? Like if California had a bajillion EC votes and Montana had 1, would we still be seeing large disparities between popular and EC results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Open question for anyone because I really just don't know enough. If the House were truly representational and didn't have it's numbers capped, would it change EC outcomes? Like if California had a bajillion EC votes and Montana had 1, would we still be seeing large disparities between popular and EC results?

The problem isn't that the EC isn't representational. It's not a great thing, but it's not a big deal. That might make it so that, say, Wyoming has 1 EC and California has a few more.

The problem is that California gives all those ECs to one person when that person wins the most votes. That's true of ALL states, but it especially matters with somewhere like California now, where they routinely vote 60-65% in favor of one party. Compare this to Florida, which Trump won by 1%. In a perfect world, California would have those ECs be given out proportionately, as would every state out there, and then you'd get something closer to real representation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Open question for anyone because I really just don't know enough. If the House were truly representational and didn't have it's numbers capped, would it change EC outcomes? Like if California had a bajillion EC votes and Montana had 1, would we still be seeing large disparities between popular and EC results?

I'm by no means an expert but I think that would go a great distance towards fixing the issue. Off the top of my head if the EC were truly representative of the pop then if North Dakota had 1 vote then I'm pretty sure California would have over 200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm asking because I see a lot of calls to abolish the EC, but not reform it. That's a separate issue and discussion worthy. If we apportion the EC votes by percentage, I honestly don't see how that's different than just a popular vote. I'm not for or against it - it's just not what I'm asking right now.

The founding fathers settled on this system and changing it would take a great deal of effort, but we've seen that it can be adjusted, as it was when it was capped. I'm just trying to figure out if the system is fine as envisioned at the time or if it truly needs to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just a popular vote because of states. It still means anything over a majority per state is wasted. As an example, let's say that someone got all the votes in California, texas and New York- 100% of the votes. But lost every other state 51 to 49%. They would lose the election in a relative landslide via ec, but would have won the popular vote by about 50 million votes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

You guys care more about Trump than I do by far.  I do other things.   Stroking my bust of Trump in the foyer takes up no more than 3 minutes in my daily routine, similar to the time spent brushing the teethes.  Then, it's on to non-executive branch activities.  Have you considered that hobby where you make fruit preserves in jars?   Or do you live near a Dave & Buster's.   

 

Two things first for expanding my vocabulary, with regards to idioms. Second, not really into the kinky details, but do the three mins include opening your pants? 

5 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Stop getting wet over military deaths, Jace!  Try clown porn like the rest of us.

 

That is weirdly specific. But whateever works for you with the stroking of your Trump bust (did I use it correctly?)

Also...

@Jace, Basilissa I suspected you might have some exotic tastes (I struggled to come up with a euphemism here), but wasn't it more mutilation than actual death? Just asking for a friend. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

@Jace, Basilissa I suspected you might have some exotic tastes (I struggled to come up with a euphemism here), but wasn't it more mutilation than actual death? Just asking for a friend. :laugh:

Dead army men in another illegal war would be more than enough to get me excited. The mutilated ones create an additional burden on the state that the taxpayer should not be expected to bear in an, as stated, illegal conflict.

The American people have become disgustingly comfortable with continuous, dare I say superfluous, overseas conflict. Likely because of the dismal casualty figures that the locals have been able to inflict upon occupying forces. Ten or twenty thousand dead in what would still be an (in the broad scheme) easy victory over Iran could do wonders to tame the American taste for occupation of foreign soil. It's an outdated concept for regional supremacy anyway. Just think about how #mydeadwarrior will trend on twitter every day after large scale engagements. It'd giftwrap the election to -insert democrat here-.

So the deader the better, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours 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.

First of all, my point is if there's gonna be this continued "fleeing" of young voters from small, "Middle America" states, what does the demographic composition entail once they do?  Sure, losing younger voters generally hurts Dems, but what's the composition of older voters - or the younger voters that do stay?  Are they minorities?  Educated?  Religious?  You don't really know, and neither does anybody.  That's why I said it has no empirical basis.  You can't say there will be significant demographic shifts within states and then assume those states' partisan makeup will remain constant.  Again, that's just patent empirical fallacy.

Anyway, so let's play your game, and assume you're right about the "35" smallest states.  There are 37 states that currently have 11 electoral votes or less.  Let's break them down by partisanship, generally:

Red States:  TN, IN, MO, SC, AL, LA, KY, OK, AR, MS, KS, UT, NE, WV, ID, AK, MT, ND, SD, WY - 20 states (40 Senators)

Blue States:  New England (6 states), MD, MN, WI, CO, OR, NV, NM, HI, DE - 15 states (30 Senators)

Purple States:  Arizona - which may well have 2 Dem Senators in 16 months, and Iowa - which has gone blue 6-2 in presidential cycles since 1988 (4 Senators)

So, yeah, the GOP has an advantage in those states, but not by much - it's pretty much 20-15.  It that shifts 2 states our way it's even.  And, of course, Democrats can and have won in many of those red states just as Republicans can and have won in those blue states.

Then lets look at the 13 big states:

Solid Dem:  CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA - 5 states

Lean Dem:  MI, VA, PA - 3 states

Lean GOP:  FL, NC, OH - 3 states 

Solid GOP:  TX, GA - 2 states

That's a 16-10 spread.  So overall, we're talking about a competitive advantage of 50-46, with Arizona and Iowa in the middle.  Even if you give Iowa to the GOP, that's 52-46 with Arizona trending Dem.  

Conclusion:  This disparity does not even approach the dire straits you're proposing, no matter how you cut it.  It's a slight advantage, and holding it up as the reason why this country is "fundamentally broken" just makes you sound ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think this is a bit lacking of data.

The red state Republicans are already 40 of the 100 total senators. Of the divided ones, Alabama, Ohio, West Virginia and Montana are continuing to turn redder or are already very red with no sign of change. 

So we've got basically 46 senator seats that have very little shot of dem senators in the future. One could consider Florida as a better shot, save that it just got rid of its incumbent dem senator with fairly negative republican support, and Rubio is the other senator; chances are good Florida is going redder as well, not bluer. So we're already at 48 seats that are reliably red or will be, meaning things like a filibuster-proof majority for dems is virtually impossible except in national crisis. 

Now you're right that in the near future, places like Arizona and Colorado should both be solidly dem or rarely republican. That's cool and all, but it means for dems to get a majority they need all of those states AND they need Maine AND they need Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - and all of those states are also becoming more red. 

And as to the blue swing in Georgia or South Carolina - I'll believe it when I see it. Same goes for Texas. Given that we're seeing MASSIVE polling place reduction in those places, I don't think they're going blue any time soon. 

I do not see why you believe that Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are going to become more "red", especially the latter three after the results of the 2018 election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...