Politics And Current Events
-
- Posts: 8963
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am
Politics And Current Events
I don't know how anyone can say, with a straight face, that the smallest states are important under a winner take all the electoral votes situation. Winner take all transfers the power to the large swing states. Nothing more, nothing less. Want proof? Here are the states with the fewest EC votes. When was the last time you heard a political pundit say they were "must win" states for either candidate to cinch the election?
Alaska
Delaware
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
Wyoming
Hawaii
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Nebraska
New Mexico
West Virginia
Alaska
Delaware
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
Wyoming
Hawaii
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Nebraska
New Mexico
West Virginia
Politics And Current Events
so 3/538 votes for ND or 344K out of 63 million would be the debate here - 0.5% or uh, 0.5%
Politics And Current Events
And it also goes to the apportionment thing Freddy and I were discussing yesterday. The battleground states of PA, OH, and MI tot up to 54 electoral votes; CA - with 5 million more people - only has one more electoral vote. Texas has roughly 6 million more people than PA and OH combined, but they have the same number of electoral votes.
It's a goofy system where only five or six states really have sway in any given election, and they are not the wee states with one at-large congressional district.
It's a goofy system where only five or six states really have sway in any given election, and they are not the wee states with one at-large congressional district.
Politics And Current Events
"But EC gives power to the small guys" is the 2nd worst "stupid statement pet peeve" statement I know - closely behind any football TV analyst saying "I don't understand why they went for 2" - after scoring TD that cut the deficit to 8, very close to the end of the game.I don't know how anyone can say, with a straight face, that the smallest states are important under a winner take all the electoral votes situation. Winner take all transfers the power to the large swing states. Nothing more, nothing less. Want proof? Here are the states with the fewest EC votes. When was the last time you heard a political pundit say they were "must win" states for either candidate to cinch the election?
Alaska
Delaware
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
Wyoming
Hawaii
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Nebraska
New Mexico
West Virginia
Politics And Current Events
Duncan Hunter has become the second congressman from CA-50 to plead guilty to criming while in office. The seat is like the Illinois governor's desk, and seems to invite misconduct.
Politics And Current Events
Because you shouldn’t go for two until absolutely necessary."But EC gives power to the small guys" is the 2nd worst "stupid statement pet peeve" statement I know - closely behind any football TV analyst saying "I don't understand why they went for 2" - after scoring TD that cut the deficit to 8, very close to the end of the game.I don't know how anyone can say, with a straight face, that the smallest states are important under a winner take all the electoral votes situation. Winner take all transfers the power to the large swing states. Nothing more, nothing less. Want proof? Here are the states with the fewest EC votes. When was the last time you heard a political pundit say they were "must win" states for either candidate to cinch the election?
Alaska
Delaware
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
Wyoming
Hawaii
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Nebraska
New Mexico
West Virginia
All those small states add up. So it definitely gives some power to the smaller states. It isn’t a stupid argument.
-
- Posts: 35315
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
- Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry
Politics And Current Events
The idea that people in the 18th century could not foresee 350 million people is so silly as to be eyeroll worthy.There are 19 or 20 cities in the US with larger populations than the largest whole state had as of the first census (and two cities with larger populations than the entire country had at that time), and life expectancy then was not even 40 years for men. The Framers did not have the actuarial capacity to foresee a country of 350 million people expected to live into their 8th decade; no one did in the 1780s.It’s interesting that since my opinion differs from yours there’s “chronological snobbery” and they couldn’t do math. Predicting the future has a lot of factors. What do you think the US population will be in 200 years? I think it’s more complicated than a math problem.I think that is a bit of chronological snobbery on the first part. These guys could do basic math. Plus Jefferson (and Franklin) was especially interested in proving America's superiority to Europe. Its "bigness" was his main weapon in that.Envisioning land ownership is one thing. Envisioning a population explosion is another. I just think the number we have now would have been quite hard to fathom then.They envisioned a nation which stretched from sea-to-sea. I'm sure they had enough imagination to know it would get filled up with people.
They also put in mechanisms to change things to deal with the reality that things would need to be changed.
To your second point, I agree. That’s the same thing I posted. However, I would argue that the majority of people today think the constitution is or should be set in stone.
Here's a good article on it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... am/471696/
But to me, the issue isn't so much just expansion and population growth, it's the way that population is dispersed. I remember reading a paper back when I was in college that it would be possible for something like a 5% minority of the overall population to veto a constitutional amendment, if that population was dispersed widely enough among a small number of states. So something with 95% 'broad appeal' is theoretically not a sure thing. Similarly, depending on how the population is dispersed, we could have as little as around a 40% minority pass a constitutional amendment.
Now, that has been true in this country since the early 1800s, and we haven't seen it take place. So that's a good thing. And there are a lot of moving parts to the equation that limit the real-world possibility of situations like that arising....... but as we continue to ever self-sort into pockets of regional political affiliation, and certain groups ever trend towards smaller and smaller sub-divisions, that kind of thing becomes more and more possible.
It's one of the reasons why I'm against leaving the Electoral College as it is: We've had instances where the winner of the popular vote lost in the EC like five times, but two of them have been in the last five elections, and it is more likely to happen with greater frequency if these population/demographic trends continue. It casts a pall over the presidency, and can challenge the notion that the winner has 'broad support' among the states.
These guys weren't cavemen.
In Jefferson's lifetime Kentucky by itself went from zero white people to 550,000 not counting slaves and you think he couldn't foresee that growing in similar numbers from sea to shining sea?
Politics And Current Events
a lot of calls between Rudy, the White house, Paranas, and Nunes coming out from the impeachment record just released.
Politics And Current Events
also OMB. Why would he be talking with them?
Politics And Current Events
The total global population at the time was 800 Million. The current U.S. population is estimated at 340 million today. Do I think they could foresee exponential growth? Certainly.
Do I think they believed you could unite half the globe in 1800 under their new U.S. Constitution as the foundation of the hemisphere's government? No, no I don't. In fact, and Shyster would love this, I think they'd sooner have had the US split into about four different countries by now in order to amplify the local needs/voice.
Also, I know he's just the time period example, but Jefferson hardly had anything to do with the Constitution. Hang your hat on Madison who busted his ass rallying people around the Virginia Plan before most of the delegates had even arrived.
Do I think they believed you could unite half the globe in 1800 under their new U.S. Constitution as the foundation of the hemisphere's government? No, no I don't. In fact, and Shyster would love this, I think they'd sooner have had the US split into about four different countries by now in order to amplify the local needs/voice.
Also, I know he's just the time period example, but Jefferson hardly had anything to do with the Constitution. Hang your hat on Madison who busted his ass rallying people around the Virginia Plan before most of the delegates had even arrived.
Politics And Current Events
I wonder if OMB inbound shows up as White House Phone #. In which case it's really just Rudi calling OMB and Lev.also OMB. Why would he be talking with them?
What it shows was that they were pretty desperate to connect that day, playing phone tag. They only talked for 5 minutes in the morning, but between them placed 7 calls.
I wonder what "-1" is.
-
- Posts: 8998
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:02 am
Politics And Current Events
I think most of the founding fathers probably weren’t very smart
Politics And Current Events
Does the DOJ IG have any jurisdiction over the CIA?Barr's point is that the IG didn't also investigate the CIA's role here (only the FBI and DOJ) so now we have to wait for the Durham report for final word.Did you see Barr leaked out that he disputes the findings.When does that IG report on the russia investigation come out so Comey & McCabe can be jailed?
Absolute dipshittery. The whole republican apparatus is just spewing out endless nonsense to validate whatever random bullshit the administration is trying to gaslight with
That wasn't part of what he was supposed to investigate. Barr's inquiry is apparently investigating the CIA's role here. More than likely they'll go after Brennan.
-
- Posts: 11094
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:08 pm
- Location: Location: Location
Politics And Current Events
Several calls between Parnas and Nunes...what a clown.
Politics And Current Events
If you are going to use population then it would be best to use percentages. USA percentage of the population in the 1800s was about .5 to 1% of total population. Now it is 4 to 4.5%.The total global population at the time was 800 Million. The current U.S. population is estimated at 340 million today. Do I think they could foresee exponential growth? Certainly.
Do I think they believed you could unite half the globe in 1800 under their new U.S. Constitution as the foundation of the hemisphere's government? No, no I don't. In fact, and Shyster would love this, I think they'd sooner have had the US split into about four different countries by now in order to amplify the local needs/voice.
Also, I know he's just the time period example, but Jefferson hardly had anything to do with the Constitution. Hang your hat on Madison who busted his ass rallying people around the Virginia Plan before most of the delegates had even arrived.
Politics And Current Events
You need to get off the binary train. Just because some think they couldn’t foresee the huge numbers doesn’t mean we think they were dumb. It means they were human. As I said before, it’s not a simple math calculation. There were so many different technological and medical advances, it seems eyeroll worthy that one can think people (even the non stupid FF) would account for.The idea that people in the 18th century could not foresee 350 million people is so silly as to be eyeroll worthy.There are 19 or 20 cities in the US with larger populations than the largest whole state had as of the first census (and two cities with larger populations than the entire country had at that time), and life expectancy then was not even 40 years for men. The Framers did not have the actuarial capacity to foresee a country of 350 million people expected to live into their 8th decade; no one did in the 1780s.It’s interesting that since my opinion differs from yours there’s “chronological snobbery” and they couldn’t do math. Predicting the future has a lot of factors. What do you think the US population will be in 200 years? I think it’s more complicated than a math problem.I think that is a bit of chronological snobbery on the first part. These guys could do basic math. Plus Jefferson (and Franklin) was especially interested in proving America's superiority to Europe. Its "bigness" was his main weapon in that.
Envisioning land ownership is one thing. Envisioning a population explosion is another. I just think the number we have now would have been quite hard to fathom then.
To your second point, I agree. That’s the same thing I posted. However, I would argue that the majority of people today think the constitution is or should be set in stone.
Here's a good article on it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... am/471696/
But to me, the issue isn't so much just expansion and population growth, it's the way that population is dispersed. I remember reading a paper back when I was in college that it would be possible for something like a 5% minority of the overall population to veto a constitutional amendment, if that population was dispersed widely enough among a small number of states. So something with 95% 'broad appeal' is theoretically not a sure thing. Similarly, depending on how the population is dispersed, we could have as little as around a 40% minority pass a constitutional amendment.
Now, that has been true in this country since the early 1800s, and we haven't seen it take place. So that's a good thing. And there are a lot of moving parts to the equation that limit the real-world possibility of situations like that arising....... but as we continue to ever self-sort into pockets of regional political affiliation, and certain groups ever trend towards smaller and smaller sub-divisions, that kind of thing becomes more and more possible.
It's one of the reasons why I'm against leaving the Electoral College as it is: We've had instances where the winner of the popular vote lost in the EC like five times, but two of them have been in the last five elections, and it is more likely to happen with greater frequency if these population/demographic trends continue. It casts a pall over the presidency, and can challenge the notion that the winner has 'broad support' among the states.
These guys weren't cavemen.
In Jefferson's lifetime Kentucky by itself went from zero white people to 550,000 not counting slaves and you think he couldn't foresee that growing in similar numbers from sea to shining sea?
Politics And Current Events
Look at what was happening in the Ukraine timeline around that date. This is just a couple days after Zelensky was elected, and right around the first time Colludey Rudy tweeted about Ukraine investigating Biden. Also the same day Amb Yovanovitch was recalled at 1 am.I wonder if OMB inbound shows up as White House Phone #. In which case it's really just Rudi calling OMB and Lev.also OMB. Why would he be talking with them?
What it shows was that they were pretty desperate to connect that day, playing phone tag. They only talked for 5 minutes in the morning, but between them placed 7 calls.
I wonder what "-1" is.
Politics And Current Events
Did you read the post from Trip above you before posting this?You need to get off the binary train. Just because some think they couldn’t foresee the huge numbers doesn’t mean we think they were dumb. It means they were human. As I said before, it’s not a simple math calculation. There were so many different technological and medical advances, it seems eyeroll worthy that one can think people (even the non stupid FF) would account for.The idea that people in the 18th century could not foresee 350 million people is so silly as to be eyeroll worthy.There are 19 or 20 cities in the US with larger populations than the largest whole state had as of the first census (and two cities with larger populations than the entire country had at that time), and life expectancy then was not even 40 years for men. The Framers did not have the actuarial capacity to foresee a country of 350 million people expected to live into their 8th decade; no one did in the 1780s.It’s interesting that since my opinion differs from yours there’s “chronological snobbery” and they couldn’t do math. Predicting the future has a lot of factors. What do you think the US population will be in 200 years? I think it’s more complicated than a math problem.
I think that is a bit of chronological snobbery on the first part. These guys could do basic math. Plus Jefferson (and Franklin) was especially interested in proving America's superiority to Europe. Its "bigness" was his main weapon in that.
Here's a good article on it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... am/471696/
But to me, the issue isn't so much just expansion and population growth, it's the way that population is dispersed. I remember reading a paper back when I was in college that it would be possible for something like a 5% minority of the overall population to veto a constitutional amendment, if that population was dispersed widely enough among a small number of states. So something with 95% 'broad appeal' is theoretically not a sure thing. Similarly, depending on how the population is dispersed, we could have as little as around a 40% minority pass a constitutional amendment.
Now, that has been true in this country since the early 1800s, and we haven't seen it take place. So that's a good thing. And there are a lot of moving parts to the equation that limit the real-world possibility of situations like that arising....... but as we continue to ever self-sort into pockets of regional political affiliation, and certain groups ever trend towards smaller and smaller sub-divisions, that kind of thing becomes more and more possible.
It's one of the reasons why I'm against leaving the Electoral College as it is: We've had instances where the winner of the popular vote lost in the EC like five times, but two of them have been in the last five elections, and it is more likely to happen with greater frequency if these population/demographic trends continue. It casts a pall over the presidency, and can challenge the notion that the winner has 'broad support' among the states.
These guys weren't cavemen.
In Jefferson's lifetime Kentucky by itself went from zero white people to 550,000 not counting slaves and you think he couldn't foresee that growing in similar numbers from sea to shining sea?
Politics And Current Events
What does that have to do with Freddy’s post?
ETA - oh, I see. After Freddy posted the same thing he’s posted before, Trip made a comment saying he thinks they’re dumb. Didn’t know he was part of the collective. I appreciate how you’ve added to this conversation though by just adding nothing.
ETA - oh, I see. After Freddy posted the same thing he’s posted before, Trip made a comment saying he thinks they’re dumb. Didn’t know he was part of the collective. I appreciate how you’ve added to this conversation though by just adding nothing.
Politics And Current Events
I wonder if OMB inbound shows up as White House Phone #. In which case it's really just Rudi calling OMB and Lev.also OMB. Why would he be talking with them?
What it shows was that they were pretty desperate to connect that day, playing phone tag. They only talked for 5 minutes in the morning, but between them placed 7 calls.
I wonder what "-1" is.
-
- Posts: 27659
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
Mulvaney and Rudy not cooperating is definitely not because all of the incriminating things they did and they know about
-
- Posts: 11094
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:08 pm
- Location: Location: Location
Politics And Current Events
Devin Nunes is a deranged human being.
Politics And Current Events
I like Kamala.
-
- Posts: 8963
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am
Politics And Current Events
I like how he tried to throw his wife under the bus and save himself. Classy guy.Duncan Hunter has become the second congressman from CA-50 to plead guilty to criming while in office. The seat is like the Illinois governor's desk, and seems to invite misconduct.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Dickie Dunn and 204 guests