Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

I don't think Joe Biden has formally confirmed he'll run -- he's still "exploring."

 

For my part, while I respect Biden and Sanders, their advanced age would be a factor for me were I voting for President, just from concern over continuity. But the field of announced candidates is wide, and as with Barack Obama, there's plenty of time for others to rise to prominence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of annoyed by Warren lately. The whole putting "Native American" down as her race to gain advantage thing rubs me the wrong way. Pretending like she didn't know she wasn't supposed to put that on paperwork without a tribal affiliation given her education level really rubs me the wrong way. Then again, I should probably stopped hoping for any semblance of honesty from any politician a long time ago.

 

Edit: I'll still take Warren over Trump if it comes to it. Just that 1/16th of me is peeved with her, even though I don't really lay any false claims to the culture that 16th came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colorado close to passing National Popular Vote bill

 

If passed they would enter the NPV Interstate Compact (which I was unaware of till today).

 

Apparently, the NPVIC is currently composed of 11 states totaling 172 electoral votes.  Once the Compact reaches 270 votes it would then declare all its electoral votes for whomever wins the popular vote in the Presidential election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 6:49 PM, Pattern Ghost said:

I'm kind of annoyed by Warren lately. The whole putting "Native American" down as her race to gain advantage thing rubs me the wrong way. Pretending like she didn't know she wasn't supposed to put that on paperwork without a tribal affiliation given her education level really rubs me the wrong way. Then again, I should probably stopped hoping for any semblance of honesty from any politician a long time ago.

 

Edit: I'll still take Warren over Trump if it comes to it. Just that 1/16th of me is peeved with her, even though I don't really lay any false claims to the culture that 16th came from.

 

Plus I just find her voice really annoying. She always sounds so earnest , like whatever she says is so important  for you to understand. Vocal mannerisms are not at all a rational ground for favoring or disfavoring a candidate, but well, there it is.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 10:32 AM, Lord Liaden said:

A declaration of National Emergency is not like dealing with other emergencies. A state of National Emergency grants the President broad powers to act without following the usual legislative and legal procedures. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 was enacted to place limitations on the President's emergency powers; but it requires Congress to vote to do so.

 

A few days ago on on one of the public radio programs I listen to (I forget whether it was All Things Considered or The Daily), someone from the Brennan Center think tank discussed some of the laws that presidents can suspend by declaring a National Emergency. Apparently, there's quite a lot of them. One mention: Bank accounts can be seized without due process. Another: Laws forbidding tests of chemical and biological weapons on unsuspecting civilian populations can be suspended.

 

(Um. I would have thought there were plenty of other laws that would forbid this without any need to specify it, but whatever.}

 

Now, my sieve-like memory makes me not the best third-hand reporter, so perhaps someone else can find and post a better source. But declaring a National Emergency where none exists suggests unsavory possibilities and unsavory intent.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Starlord said:

Colorado close to passing National Popular Vote bill

 

If passed they would enter the NPV Interstate Compact (which I was unaware of till today).

 

Apparently, the NPVIC is currently composed of 11 states totaling 172 electoral votes.  Once the Compact reaches 270 votes it would then declare all its electoral votes for whomever wins the popular vote in the Presidential election.

 

I've always known that Colorado* wanted to be California. I never knew they were taking legislative action to do it.

 

*And by 'Colorado', I mean the Denver metro area and the People's Republic of Boulder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://newsthump.com/2019/02/19/dont-you-fcking-dare-hillary-clinton-told/

 

"Hillary Clinton has been told not to announce a new Presidential run in 2020 by absolutely everybody...A spokesperson for the Clintons said, “Hillary is obviously disappointed to have been tied to a chair with a sock stuffed in her mouth to prevent her from announcing her candidacy. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 1:26 PM, Starlord said:

 

I'm no psychologist but I'd guess true narcissists have no desire for pets, unless it's a 'trophy' animal (like a prize winning horse or a tiger, etc).

 

 

At least Trump was up front in admitting that he doesn't have time to devote to owning a dog. Most people in that situation would just get one for photo ops and palm off the actual caring of the animal to whoever was around that day. That's not good for a dog. Dogs need a lot of contact with their owners and are needy compared to a cat, a turtle, or a mirror.

 

Trump strikes me as the "mirror" type of pet owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 7:50 AM, Hermit said:

 

Those praising this in the name of their religion are being incredibly short sighted. While I think Christianity is not going anywhere soon, there are more 'nones' in American demographics when it comes to religion every year: People who are atheists, agnostics, 'spiritual but not religious', or of a less populated religion but don't wish to come out just yet. Add to that those who are openly of a non Christian faith, and it's entirely possible that in a 100 years, while Christianity won't be gone, it will be a 'large minority' or LESS. 

 

Now that we've set the precedent of religions being somewhat interchangeable, well, the shoe might end up on the other foot. If we still have the death penalty in a hundred years, some Christian fellow being put to death might have to accept the state handing him over to whatever Hare Krishna ,Wiccan Priestess, or yes, Imam is handy and convenient for said State.  The Right to Freedom of Religion just took a hard blow here, and sadly, some very short sighted morons are cheering it on.

 

Speaking as a person who tries to honor Christ (Terrible at it but hey), I just want to wipe the dirt from my sandals and walk away from this at this point, but this is my country and I'm stuck with them. ?

So for me, I offer up Thoughts, Prayers... oh, and VOTING as much as I can as ineffective as that feels

 

Back when I had a religion and believed in a deity, I'd have had a huge problem being assigned a chaplain who was from a different denomination than myself. The Christian group I was in doesn't consider other Christian religions to be valid on any level. Assigning me a random Christian chaplain would have been emotionally the equivalent of them trying to infect me with syphilis.

 

So I can sympathize a hell of a lot with a Muslim being assigned someone who was not of his faith.

 

I have a real problem with the state having a chaplain of any religion on the payroll in the first place. They can't find volunteers?

Share this post


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

Colorado close to passing National Popular Vote bill

 

If passed they would enter the NPV Interstate Compact (which I was unaware of till today).

 

Apparently, the NPVIC is currently composed of 11 states totaling 172 electoral votes.  Once the Compact reaches 270 votes it would then declare all its electoral votes for whomever wins the popular vote in the Presidential election.

 

I really don't get why low-population states would want to sign on to an idea which would guarantee that presidential candidates would never visit them or spend advertising money in their state to try to get their votes.

 

I've seen some maps which show that if we go to a straight popular vote that candidates can camp out in California, Chicago, and a few places on the East Coast and win without attempting to appeal to the rest of the country.

 

I think it's a good thing that presidential candidates have to campaign in great plains farm states and have to address questions on agricultural issues then western states which have a large amount of public lands and their own lists of concerns then rural poverty stricken hellholes...I mean states...in the South which have their own unique problems. A president is supposed to be president of the whole country so, in my opinion, a system which will allow a presidential candidate to ignore campaigning and answering questions in large swaths of the country isn't going to be an improvement over the current system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, archer said:

I really don't get why low-population states would want to sign on to an idea which would guarantee that presidential candidates would never visit them or spend advertising money in their state to try to get their votes.

 

This. This right here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 7:52 AM, Lord Liaden said:

I don't think Joe Biden has formally confirmed he'll run -- he's still "exploring."

 

For my part, while I respect Biden and Sanders, their advanced age would be a factor for me were I voting for President, just from concern over continuity. But the field of announced candidates is wide, and as with Barack Obama, there's plenty of time for others to rise to prominence.

 

At the rate the Democrat race is moving leftward, Biden and Sanders might turn out to be the moderate candidates this time around. :)

 

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having a voluntary one term president. It might seem kind of odd to us given that most politicians cling to power until we pry it out of their cold, dead hands.

Share this post


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

I think it's a good thing that presidential candidates have to campaign in great plains farm states and have to address questions on agricultural issues then western states which have a large amount of public lands and their own lists of concerns then rural poverty stricken hellholes...I mean states...in the South which have their own unique problems. A president is supposed to be president of the whole country so, in my opinion, a system which will allow a presidential candidate to ignore campaigning and answering questions in large swaths of the country isn't going to be an improvement over the current system.

 

Except that, AIUI, presidential candidates already practically ignore large swaths of the country and concentrate most of their effort on key "battleground" states.  (And what's so damned important about Ohio and Florida anyway?)  Do they really visit low-population states as it is?  It doesn't seem that way to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, archer said:

https://newsthump.com/2019/02/19/dont-you-fcking-dare-hillary-clinton-told/

 

"Hillary Clinton has been told not to announce a new Presidential run in 2020 by absolutely everybody...A spokesperson for the Clintons said, “Hillary is obviously disappointed to have been tied to a chair with a sock stuffed in her mouth to prevent her from announcing her candidacy. "

 

Just in case someone thought this was real and the spokesperson was just being metaphorical, I should point out that site has "UK Spoof News and Satire" emblazoned at the top.

 

Though honestly, if that's what it takes to keep her from announcing her candidacy, I'll contribute the chair and sock.  Heck, I'll even be nice and make it a nice clean sock.  :winkgrin:

Share this post


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

 

I really don't get why low-population states would want to sign on to an idea which would guarantee that presidential candidates would never visit them or spend advertising money in their state to try to get their votes.

 

Of course they wouldn't.  For the presidency, a Wyoming vote is worth four California votes.  This is great for Wyomingites, but not great for anyone else or for democracy as a whole.  The beauty of the NPV is that it takes the Electoral College entirely out of the equation, so campaigns will be less focused on states and more focused on popular issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 9:49 PM, Pattern Ghost said:

I'm kind of annoyed by Warren lately. The whole putting "Native American" down as her race to gain advantage thing rubs me the wrong way. Pretending like she didn't know she wasn't supposed to put that on paperwork without a tribal affiliation given her education level really rubs me the wrong way. Then again, I should probably stopped hoping for any semblance of honesty from any politician a long time ago.

 

Edit: I'll still take Warren over Trump if it comes to it. Just that 1/16th of me is peeved with her, even though I don't really lay any false claims to the culture that 16th came from.

 

Well to be accurate you should be between 1/64 to 1/1024 peeved at her. :angel:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Of course they wouldn't.  For the presidency, a Wyoming vote is worth four California votes.  This is great for Wyomingites, but not great for anyone else or for democracy as a whole.  The beauty of the NPV is that it takes the Electoral College entirely out of the equation, so campaigns will be less focused on states and more focused on popular issues.

 

Just the opposite, actually.  Unless what you mean by "popular issues" is what is important to CA, NY and TX and a handful of others. (While totally telling the WYs to "#### off, because we will do what we please to you, and you'll love us for it or else).  The EC was created so WY and similar states could have a bare smidgen of power, without being stomped continuously by the big states.  Just because 2016 didn't go the "right way", is no excuse to change that  (or the idea to suggest that EC voters should have thrown away their constituents votes because they didn't vote for the right candidate).

 

Watching the last 2 years, the DNC has drifted so far into "He Who Fights Monsters" territory it is ridiculous. And a big reason why I rarely venture into this thread any longer. (don't know why I did tonight, and probably wont again for a while).   

 

Edit: I do suppose there will be less focused on states in the strictest technical sense.  But, it damn well turn the election into a Urban vs Rural fight.   And will essentially be a bull vs ant fighting with biting strictly forbidden.  The fat kid already has 55 M&Ms, and is mad the scrawny kid with the growling stomach was given 3.

 

Edit: on the other hand, if we did away with the EC, I'd sure love to see the GOP win the total votes, in which they would have lost the EC, it would sure be some appropriate karma (and would get wails from these same states for the return of the EC)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the alteration I might make to the EC, would have nationally do something similar to what ME and NE do.  I'd have each House district count as one vote, and the winner of the state as a whole gets the 2 Senate votes as it were.  That would mean (depending on the district) that a conservative in CA, or a liberal in TX would actually have a reason to bother to show up. (the majority party in the state would still have motivation for those 2 votes).  And it would mean every citizen in this country could effect the outcome of 3 votes in this country, no more, no less.

 

Of course, I say might because, I don't want to sacrifice the long term for the short term because I might not have gotten my way the last election.   (and let's be honest that is the ONLY-or at least the by far main reason-that these states want this.  As, let's be honest we never want to reverse the call that goes to our team's advantage).

 

Note: And not to forget, the 2016 election was essentially a patriots vs Cowboys super bowl for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

Well to be accurate you should be between 1/64 to 1/1024 peeved at her. :angel:

 

I'm 1/16th Choctaw, and actually qualify for tribal membership, unlike Warren. I don't try to use that to get ahead, since I wasn't raised in the culture, also unlike Warren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I'm 1/16th Choctaw, and actually qualify for tribal membership, unlike Warren. I don't try to use that to get ahead, since I wasn't raised in the culture, also unlike Warren.

 

Ok, didn't know that.  I thought you were referring to Warren's, and was trying to correct that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hermit said:

 

Plan on reading that later, I will say the part that will matter to me, is not why she was hired, but whether or not she made a claim that she was when she had no legitimate claims to.

 

Letting everyone know ahead of time, my criteria for judging.  I will be putting any info previously heard in proper place before reading and concluding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

Plan on reading that later, I will say the part that will matter to me, is not why she was hired, but whether or not she made a claim that she was when she had no legitimate claims to.

 

Letting everyone know ahead of time, my criteria for judging.  I will be putting any info previously heard in proper place before reading and concluding.

 

That's fair. Though I tend to cut some folks slack when it comes to ancestry tales partially because DNA tests being a hobby is fairly new and a lot of folks I've met claim some sort of heritage with very little proof just because they were told so by a grandmother or something. It's not malice so much as passed on ignorance in such cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...