Sir Abacus
Member
Is this before or after he uses the n word in a speech?
"It's OK I'm taking it back!"
Is this before or after he uses the n word in a speech?
It's wrong.
And it's the only thing that's kept the union afloat. The house and the EC system being directly tied to population is specifically designed as a check, so please, read a history book sometime and stop bitching about something you clearly don't understand.
It's true as well.
Not really.
People thousands of miles away from a place unilaterally deciding policy for people at home is directly what started the revolution in the first place. The framers understood that if they let new york and Virgina set policy for the rest of the states, then it would only be a matter of time before people got sick of it and started shooting at people again.
Again: both the EC and the house are checks against it, so it's while it may "suck" for that poor californian who has to deal with the senate he has to understand that the farmer from oklahoma has to put up with the 55 house reps cali sends to the house. It's a system that everyone hates for one reason or another, but no one enough to take up arms against it. That's the point, and it works specifically because of it.
That's exactly the kind of opinions that I hear all the time from right wingers I know IRL and on talk radio. They're convinced if a "real conservative" were nominated that they would win like Reagan used to. To them guys like McCain and Romney were too liberal and they want no part of candidates like Bush or Christie. They absolutely believe the mainstream is desperate for a hardline conservative candidate and can't see winning with anything less. I almost want to see someone like Cruz or Carson make it to the general election just to get crushed.
You're delusional if you think the country wouldn't have descended into Civil War without equal representation in the Senate in the early years.
The thing is, even if they're destroyed, they will not have a come to Jesus moment. They're too far into it now. Their entire worldview would have to change for them to admit that the nation is just not that into them anymore. They'll just blame it on Cruz/Huckabee whoever. They didn't "sell" it right. They went too PC. It will never, ever be a problem with their worldview. It'll always be the liberals, the media, the war on Christians, the gays, the minorities, and women who are against the rightness of white conservative males.
That's why I find Trump so interesting. He's the embodiment of what the Right in this country has become. They have turned their entire party into nothing more than who can bitch the most. Trump is great at this. It doesn't matter what he believes in (Because, deep down, I think Trump is a conservative Democrat, in all honesty) it only matters that s/he can yell loudly.
Interestingly, we on the left have the opposite problem. We win a few elections, and we suddenly think we can grab the nation and drag it to the far left. We've also fallen into the trap of nominating ideologues to the left of the nation. It doesn't work, just as it won't work for the Republicans to keep going hard right.
I'm a proud Democrat. However, the implosion of the GOP is not good for our country. While I've never voted for a Republican in my life, I think that we Democrats need someone sane to contrast our ideas with. We've, out of necessity, become the part of "not crazy." The problem is, we need another "not crazy" party too. There used to be Republicans that I disagreed with, but I could totally see working with. They've been driven so far from the GOP that it's not even funny. I think there is a place for fiscal conservatives, even though I, myself, am not one. Compromise can make some ideas a lot better than one side having to try and do everything on its own.
It'll collapse whether he has a scandal or not. The republican primaries are always a clown car early on with ridiculous people in the lead for periods of time (Herman Caine led the polls for a while in 2012). Once you get closer to the end of primary season things work themselves out and everyone falls in line behind one of the establishment type picks. I am not sure who exactly that'll be, but it could potentially be Jeb or Rubio. I just know it won't be Trump or any other extra cartoonish person. It just never is.
Uh, that's kind of the point I was making with my post >.>
Also, there are way more points in US history where civil war would have probably erupted had it not been for the senate being set up the way it is.
Why is Donald Trump more popular now than any previous Presidential run? What is different now? His level of "I don't give a shit"?
There is, they just don't exist within the the current Republican Party. Any cuts they make to government programs, education, etc, they just turn around and spend on tax cuts for the rich and corporations, the military, or ridiculous repeated efforts to repeal Obamacare. And let's not even get started on the government shutdown that cost us billions.I think there is a place for fiscal conservatives
There is, they just don't exist within the the current Republican Party. Any cuts they make to government programs, education, etc, they just turn around and spend on tax cuts for the rich and corporations, the military, or ridiculous repeated efforts to repeal Obamacare. And let's not even get started on the government shutdown that cost us billions.
How has it come to this? And more importantly, what are Americans doing about it?
No, it was not designed to give Montana voters so much more power than California voters. It was designed to be a particular balance of the original 13 colonies. But the weird artifacts from the original design now create inequities in the modern world 200 years later. It is just a stupid artifact of history that a few hundred thousand people in Alaska get the same number of senators as 40 million people in California. If you told that fact to one founders they would probably tell us to change it. But it is hard to get people with an unfair advantage to let go of that unfair advantage.And that is entirely by design and the whole point of the system, whether you agree with it or not. Gerrymandering for House seats is an issue of course, but the whole point of the Senate, which you seem to take the most issue with, was to ensure that each state has equal representation in the Union. The Senate isn't about representing your views, it's about representing the views of the individual states in the same way that each country of Europe has equal representation in the European Council, regardless of population.
No, it was not designed to give Montana voters so much more power than California voters. It was designed to be a particular balance of the original 13 colonies. But the weird artifacts from the original design now create inequities in the modern world 200 years later. It is just a stupid artifact of history that a few hundred thousand people in Alaska get the same number of senators as 40 million people in California. If you told that fact to one founders they would probably tell us to change it. But it is hard to get people with an unfair advantage to let go of that unfair advantage.
No, it was not designed to give Montana voters so much more power than California voters. It was designed to be a particular balance of the original 13 colonies. But the weird artifacts from the original design now create inequities in the modern world 200 years later. It is just a stupid artifact of history that a few hundred thousand people in Alaska get the same number of senators as 40 million people in California. If you told that fact to one founders they would probably tell us to change it. But it is hard to get people with an unfair advantage to let go of that unfair advantage.
No, it was not designed to give Montana voters so much more power than California voters. It was designed to be a particular balance of the original 13 colonies. But the weird artifacts from the original design now create inequities in the modern world 200 years later. It is just a stupid artifact of history that a few hundred thousand people in Alaska get the same number of senators as 40 million people in California. If you told that fact to one founders they would probably tell us to change it. But it is hard to get people with an unfair advantage to let go of that unfair advantage.
Bingo.
The thing is, I don't know how they fix the GOP. I really don't. However, all Americans have an interest in them doing something. The GOP controls a ton of state legislatures. They've gerrymandered control of the House. The GOP has passed nothing of note since taking control of the House in 2010.
Something has to happen. I don't think a realistic answer is for us Dems to take control of everything (even though I might not hate the idea...). The GOP needs to purge the crazies. Yes, it's going to hurt them short term, but they're dying out anyway. I think that's their only path forward.
10X = 100X?That's a little silly considering that's the explicit reason why states like Delaware or Rhode Island, who were in fact one of the original 13, got the same amount of senate seats as Virginia who had roughly 10x the population in the early 1800s.
Yes, and it's the point of the system that it remains the same regardless how far the metric gets stretched.10X = 100X?
It's quite a quantitative difference.
Do you have a time machine to go back in time with to retroactively remove a state?Yes, and it's the point of the system that it remains the same regardless how far the metric gets stretched.
If bigger states didn't want such power in Alaska then they could have blocked it from becoming a state in the first place. But guess what? They understood that Alaska's power is still checked because even though they have two seats in the senate they only send 1 rep to the house.
Do you have a time machine to go back in time with to retroactively remove a state?
And play the argument out further. What if one state ends up with 10 million times as much voting power. Does that still make sense? Of course not.
It was just a system thrown together at the time with some arbitrary hacks to get it approved. It also didn't allow women to vote and black people were property. Trying to pretend it was some perfectly planned out magic system is ludicrous.
Do you have a time machine to go back in time with to retroactively remove a state?
And play the argument out further. What if one state ends up with 10 million times as much voting power. Does that still make sense? Of course not.
It was just a system thrown together at the time with some arbitrary hacks to get it approved. It also didn't allow women to vote and black people were property. Trying to pretend it was some perfectly planned out magic system is ludicrous.
I do, actually, because I believe Trump's only loyalty is to himself.4. Does anybody really think Trump would go 3rd party just to fuck with the GOP?
What do you want Americans to do outside of voicing their support for or against Donald Trump?
Moderators should call them out on repetitive answers, answers that don't actually answer the question, soundbites and the occasional mumbling of incoherent words. Viewers should contact these news stations and journalists and make that expectation clear because right now they think the status quo is good enough.
Done.
US politics completely changed overnight.
Moderators should call them out on repetitive answers, answers that don't actually answer the question, soundbites and the occasional mumbling of incoherent words. Viewers should contact these news stations and journalists and make that expectation clear because right now they think the status quo is good enough.
Done.
US politics completely changed overnight.
Is it possible Trump wins early because of a fractured field?
You're talking about a voting bloc that was more angry at Candy Crowley for having the gall to correct Mitt Romney about Obama calling Benghazi an act of terror than they were at Romney for outright lying about it.Moderators should call them out on repetitive answers, answers that don't actually answer the question, soundbites and the occasional mumbling of incoherent words. Viewers should contact these news stations and journalists and make that expectation clear because right now they think the status quo is good enough.
Done.
US politics completely changed overnight.
The inequities grow over time. The situation now is not nearly the same as when Alaska was admitted.Not even sure what you're trying to say here.
No . . . it is not 'balanced out' . . . it becomes completely deadlocked. Nothing would pass.Reductio ad absurdum is a silly argument, but in the absurd scenario, that would never happen as said state with 10 millionx people would still be balanced because it would send vastly more people to the house, and would be immeasurably more powerful in presidential elections through the EC.
Not at all. They are just arbitrary hacks from back in the day which don't work well now.Secondly, to equate the checks and balances system with slavery is pretty asinine.
This is why he'll go nowhere in the primary. It's Huntsmans disease.
8 years of Obama and socially progressive legislation has them angry and bitter with an appetite for abrasiveness and politically incorrect commentary.Why is Donald Trump more popular now than any previous Presidential run? What is different now? His level of "I don't give a shit"?
On the senate revision side-topic: I think statehood for Puerto Rico and representation for DC would go a long way toward making the senate a little more representative of the American public's desires without scrapping the two senators per state system.
Anyway, let's say Trump wins the first primary or two because the (relatively) sensible side of the GOP is split... do you think most candidates will drop out en masse and back a particular candidate just to ensure Trump doesn't get the nom? I could see a scenario where two "realistic" candidates choosing to stick it out to the end, say Rubio and Bush, eat into each other's base and end up letting Trump steal the nomination. Thoughts?
You guys are absolutely batshit insane if you think Trump will even sniff the Rep Nom and even less that he goes independent. Trump only cares about one thing: himself. Even if he dumped a considerable amount of his oft-disputed wealth into an Indie run, there is no way he steals enough votes to win. And since he knows that is the only outcome, he won't waste the time or money.
A third party candidate would have to be the most charismatic aisle-reacher ever going up against two incoherent ideologues to even have an outside chance, and no matter what both sides want to believe about the other party's inevitable pick, neither will be more than a right-of-center politician who shills for special interests. Most likely Bush v Clinton II, but possibly Rubio or Kasich sneaks in there.
Why is Donald Trump more popular now than any previous Presidential run? What is different now? His level of "I don't give a shit"?
You guys are absolutely batshit insane if you think Trump will even sniff the Rep Nom and even less that he goes independent. Trump only cares about one thing: himself. Even if he dumped a considerable amount of his oft-disputed wealth into an Indie run, there is no way he steals enough votes to win. And since he knows that is the only outcome, he won't waste the time or money.
A third party candidate would have to be the most charismatic aisle-reacher ever going up against two incoherent ideologues to even have an outside chance, and no matter what both sides want to believe about the other party's inevitable pick, neither will be more than a right-of-center politician who shills for special interests. Most likely Bush v Clinton II, but possibly Rubio or Kasich sneaks in there.
This is nothing but him using the political machine to generate attention and buzz. It's sickeningly self-interested and cynical, but setting aside the nastiness and immorality, it's prudent.
I don't think you've paid attention to Obama's presidency.Let's face it, as Obama's terms have shown, all politicians are basically the same and it doesn't matter which figurehead is actually the president. Obama destroyed a lot of people's hopes so people might as well get some entertainment out of this. That's where Trump's showmanship is the king