U.S. Politics: Here At the End of All Things

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Kalibear said:

he's a fucking lot more liberal than Neil Gorsuch. 

No question.  But I think he would have been more of a swing vote than a solid member of the liberal wing of the Court.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Becoming that which you oppose is exactly what I would hope no organization or individual would do.

There's what it takes to do to win and what you do after it's done. I don't like arguing to fight dirty. I believe in the egalitarian approach. This is not the terrain I want. But I'm not going to lie to myself. Republicans are signaling very loudly that they'll do whatever it takes to win. Combating that with "can't we just stick to norms" is going to lose. So like I said, best just hope that after the fact the ethical people do the right thing and avoid the temptations of power. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's what it takes to do to win and what you do after it's done. I don't like arguing to fight dirty. I believe in the egalitarian approach. This is not the terrain I want. But I'm not going to lie to myself. Republicans are signaling very loudly that they'll do whatever it takes to win. Combating that with "can't we just stick to norms" is going to lose. So like I said, best just hope that after the fact the ethical people do the right thing and avoid the temptations of power. 

You are certainly entitled to that point of view.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

Unmasking’ probe commissioned by Barr concludes without charges or any public report

https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com%2fnational-security%2fbarr-unmasking-review-no-charges%2f2020%2f10%2f13%2f0f63fd2e-0d67-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html%3foutputType%3damp

 

[Kalbear]

Yep. If you want to change how systems work, the best thing to do is do it at the state levels. That has both the easiest chance and is the most likely way to move the ball forward across multiple states, the same way mail voting has happened. Start with adding things like ranked choice voting, do some MMPR for state legislatures, and show how it fosters multiparty systems and more diverse power structures. 

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No question.  But I think he would have been more of a swing vote than a solid member of the liberal wing of the Court.

I think that the last 4 years would have had a number of very different outcomes, most notably the travel ban and gerrymandering. I kind of think that's a pretty big deal. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’d go State by State and seek changes at the State level.  Both Maine and Nebraska have demonstrated a willingness to change the way electors are selected.  As such I’d like see change in the way we elect House Members.

But what if a state won't play ball? What if a coalition of states join in a pact that supersedes the best interests of the country? 

Throwing it to the states is a bad idea. We're either a country or we're not, it's time to end that tired argument. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

But what if a state won't play ball? What if a coalition of states join in a pact that supersedes the best interests of the country? 

There are ways to make states play ball. But realistically that's just something you're going to have to deal with for a while, the same way gay marriage advocates did. 

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Throwing it to the states is a bad idea. We're either a country or we're not, it's time to end that tired argument. 

Good luck doing that, given the absurd amount of state's rights doctrine and settled law in the US. I'd personally try and go after things that are possible, not make the US into another country called "America" or something like that. But you keep going after that pterodactyl.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

I think that the last 4 years would have had a number of very different outcomes, most notably the travel ban and gerrymandering. I kind of think that's a pretty big deal. 

I think that is certainly possible.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

There are ways to make states play ball. But realistically that's just something you're going to have to deal with for a while, the same way gay marriage advocates did. 

And Obergefell could be back in play. Which creates a Pandora's Box if it's, wait, kicked back to the states....

Quote

Good luck doing that, given the absurd amount of state's rights doctrine and settled law in the US. I'd personally try and go after things that are possible, not make the US into another country called "America" or something like that.

Well yeah, duh, but weren't we having a conversation about things that won't actually happen?

Quote

But you keep going after that pterodactyl.

Always will.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Throwing it to the states is a bad idea. We're either a country or we're not, it's time to end that tired argument. 

I’m seeking to break larger goals into manageable chunks so that it is not, to use your words, a “fairy tale”.

[Kalbear]

I guess that's really the important point - the process that has resulted in the most successes in moving the ball forward has been overwhelmingly doing it first at the state level and then expanding it. You can hope for things like the ACA or social security or the VRA, but those have happened when the country is in massive turmoil; relying on that in order to push major agendas is probably not something that is going to work as a sustained process.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The polls continue to show a Biden lead thats ~10.5 or so, at this point I dont know how much that deficit can be pared down. Should also note that there is a very modest (~1.5%) difference between Trump vote share and approval rating, and I dont know too many people who would approve of his performance and not vote for him. So maybe the polls could be slightly underestimating his support (but the difference is small enough that it could be any number of factors).

The other good poll out for Biden was +2 in GA by Survey USA, that at the same time showed Osoff running -3. So its possible (allowing myself some hope) that increased AA turnout from Atlanta etc. could move GA over the finish line. Lets wait and see.

"Approve of" has also seemed like a rather weak affirmation to me. I think I would say I "approve of" the performance of a student I'd give a C- to. There could be lots of people out there who might give Trump a C- but who would vote for Biden instead if they are convinced he would be at least a C+. 

[Kalbear]

Conversely, I heard a voter this morning on NPR - a  farmer in Iowa - who does not 'approve' of the performance Trump is doing but is voting for him because he isn't sure how Biden will govern and at least he knows where Trump stands, even though his policies have almost ruined this guy. 

Democracy would be great if it wasn't for all the people

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Kalibear said:

Democracy would be great if it wasn't for all the people

The worst form of Government except for all the rest.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m seeking to break larger goals into manageable chunks so that it is not, to use your words, a “fairy tale”.

Wouldn't an expanded Senate, House, Supreme Court and Judiciary help that? And isn't that actually doable, in theory? Sounds a lot easier than some kind of Constitutional Amendment like what you would need to achieve your goal.

4 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

I guess that's really the important point - the process that has resulted in the most successes in moving the ball forward has been overwhelmingly doing it first at the state level and then expanding it. You can hope for things like the ACA or social security or the VRA, but those have happened when the country is in massive turmoil; relying on that in order to push major agendas is probably not something that is going to work as a sustained process.

Like right now? If this isn't massive turmoil, what is? 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Like right now? If this isn't massive turmoil, what is? 

The great recession was far worse as far as getting everyone in a panic. Most people aren't viewing this as massive turmoil for some reason, probably because it's hit the richer people less (or actually made them richer) and hit minorities more. I suspect a lot of people think that most of the problems are only problems because of Trump, as wrong as that is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Wouldn't an expanded Senate, House, Supreme Court and Judiciary help that? And isn't that actually doable, in theory? Sounds a lot easier than some kind of Constitutional Amendment like what you would need to achieve your goal.

You need more States to expand the Senate.  FYI.  

I’ve been arguing to expand the House for Decades.  I have been laughed at, on this board, for advocating to expand the House.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You need more States to expand the Senate.  FYI.

Like D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands? Did you not read any of my previous posts?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Like D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands? Did you not read any of my previous posts?

It’s a possibility.  I think NYC should be it’s own State too.

[argonak]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You need more States to expand the Senate.  FYI.  

I’ve been arguing to expand the House for Decades.  I have been laughed at, on this board, for advocating to expand the House.

We should also be merging smaller states.  Any state under a million people should be merged with another next to it, in my opinion.  We're a democracy, not a Geographcy or whatever that would be called.  Votes should be based on population not square miles.