Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I feel this needs to be shared.  

Meanwhile over Mar-a Lago:  

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, Greywind said:

I think Harris is a shoe-in for President.

Assuming Biden doesn't survive his 4 years...

 

15 minutes ago, Starlord said:

In 2024, Donald Trump will be the same age as Biden is now, and will still be eligible for another 4 years.

 

I always found the age thing weird.  They are only a few years apart - though Biden might have worn his worse?  Then again, Trump goes through a substantial amount of effort to look young - his physical health might be a lot worse than he appears.

 

--- bleh bleh merge bleh ---

 

Honestly I think the reason people keep on repeating the "Biden is old" gimmick is purely because of crappy memes.

 

Do we want to hear my rants about memes again?

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

 

I am not a good Christian, so at the risk of hypocrisy: It disgusts me how many religious people  seem to think Trump is sent by God to save them when even a glance at Jesus teachings would show that Trump is far more Anti-Christ than Christlike. Even sticking to the tend commandments He's lied, he's tried to steal, he's born false witness time and time again. He's encouraged the killing of others and his own lies have led to mass death.  He puts up idols to himself.  When you get to the new Testament "love thy neighbor" or the Beatitudes he really falls down. I've heard the excuse that God is using a flawed man to do his work blah blah, but in the end it's all contorted troll logic used by folks wanting to tell themselves how promoting a man of hatred and materialism is 'okay'. 

 

There's a line in the bible about people going to Jesus and claiming they did all this wonderful stuff in his name. I think a lot of folks in this country are at risk of getting a sad "I do not know you" in the hereafter. 

 

 

 

I found a couple of links which might be helpful for you in some situations.

 

The first one is an honest intellectual look at Trump and the implications of supporting Trump if you are indeed trying to be a Christian. It was written by a Baptist pastor so it should be speaking in a language which is familiar to those who live in your state.

 

I considered posting it before the election but I try to not stray too far into religion, even when it's helpful in political analysis.

 

Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin

PONDERING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE 2020 ELECTION

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/policies-persons-and-paths-to-ruin

 

 

This second article is pretty self-explanatory and was written by a Southern Baptist pastor who works for CNN.

 

How QAnon Uses Religion to Lure Unsuspecting Christians

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/15/us/qanon-religion-churches/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

 

I always found the age thing weird.  They are only a few years apart - though Biden might have worn his worse?  Then again, Trump goes through a substantial amount of effort to look young - his physical health might be a lot worse than he appears.

 

--- bleh bleh merge bleh ---

 

Honestly I think the reason people keep on repeating the "Biden is old" gimmick is purely because of crappy memes.

 

Do we want to hear my rants about memes again?

 

Just pointing out if Trump loses he can snipe from the sidelines for 4 years, maintain his base, and then run again and possibly pull a Grover Cleveland.  The only way he goes away is if the next 4 years goes swimmingly for Biden and the Republicans can somehow band together and decisively amputate him like the diseased limb that he is....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2020 at 1:31 AM, assault said:

I've been watching the Australian coverage of this. Actually, given that I have a TV on in the background, I still am.

 

Anyway, the thing that has struck me the most is that the US system is extremely gerrymandered.

 

The term gerrymander originated from the US, but it perfectly describes how US presidential and Senate elections work.

My evidence for this is how many states have only three electoral college votes in play. Unless I am mistaken (I've looked it up, but, you know), the formula for determining electoral college votes consists of the number of Senators, plus the number of representatives in the House of Reps/Congress. So that means that there are whole lot of states that only sent one Representative to Congress. The number of them is based on population. States with next to no population have a disproportionate influence on the composition of the Senate and on who gets elected as President. That's a gerrymander.

US elections are not democratic.

You are quite right: US presidential elections are not democratic, and this was a conscious choice in the writing of the Constitution.

 

There's an old saw about legislation and sausage-making, and it applies even to the Constitution. Back in high school civics class I learned that the Electoral College was to protect the small states from collusion by the big states. On last weekend's episode of On the Media (IIRC -- the radio programs tend to blur into each other) a historian gave the sordid backstory: For "small states" read "Southern slave states" and for "big states" read "Northern industrial/commercial states." Even in 1789, these blocs were well established. The Southerners demanded various concessions as their price for staying in the new union, and got most of what they wanted. Even then, they were less urban, and therefore less populous. They played chicken with the very existence of the new United States of America, and it worked. We still live with the consequences because once again, a minority bloc sees it as necessary for its political power.

 

("I know not if the truth it be; I tell the tale 'twas told to me.")

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

Just pointing out if Trump loses he can snipe from the sidelines for 4 years, maintain his base, and then run again and possibly pull a Grover Cleveland.  The only way he goes away is if the next 4 years goes swimmingly for Biden and the Republicans can somehow band together and decisively amputate him like the diseased limb that he is....

 

I was thinking (more accurately, dreading) the exact same thing earlier today.  We could be repeating this whole gruesome rigmarole in 2024.  And I can't see the Republicans helping things go swimmingly for Biden - to the contrary, they proved themselves to be the Party of No during Obama's two terms, and I expect 4 more years of the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trump will probably be sniping from the sideline, using his status as an ex-President to compel the media to listen.  Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if he became a Fox News contributor.

 

I am undecided, tho, whether the Republicans would accept him running again, or go a different direction.  If the latter...what about Pence, or is he too tarred with the Trump brush?  Not sure.  Pence would likely be more comfortable with the religious conservatives but not necessarily with the whole MAGA crowd.  But...someone can take that up, and push all the same buttons.  It need not be Trump.

 

EDIT:  there's a NY Times article on this;  they talk about Trump possibly trying to build a network to rival Fox News.  That's perhaps easier said than done.  But...he also has 88 million Twitter followers.  If nothing else, continuing to harangue there will have influence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I am undecided, tho, whether the Republicans would accept him running again, or go a different direction.  If the latter...what about Pence, or is he too tarred with the Trump brush?  Not sure.  Pence would likely be more comfortable with the religious conservatives but not necessarily with the whole MAGA crowd.  But...someone can take that up, and push all the same buttons.  It need not be Trump.

 

Tucker Carlson 😕

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

You are quite right: US presidential elections are not democratic, and this was a conscious choice in the writing of the Constitution.

 

There's an old saw about legislation and sausage-making, and it applies even to the Constitution. Back in high school civics class I learned that the Electoral College was to protect the small states from collusion by the big states. On last weekend's episode of On the Media (IIRC -- the radio programs tend to blur into each other) a historian gave the sordid backstory: For "small states" read "Southern slave states" and for "big states" read "Northern industrial/commercial states." Even in 1789, these blocs were well established. The Southerners demanded various concessions as their price for staying in the new union, and got most of what they wanted. Even then, they were less urban, and therefore less populous. They played chicken with the very existence of the new United States of America, and it worked. We still live with the consequences because once again, a minority bloc sees it as necessary for its political power.

 

("I know not if the truth it be; I tell the tale 'twas told to me.")

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Honestly, I never heard the "small states as slave states" meme until after the 2000 election when the movement to get rid of the Electoral College started to pick up steam. That makes me think that the people who were trying to get rid of the Electoral College were trying to gin up some false relationship between slavery and the Electoral College.

 

When I was learning history, the large states at the time the Constitution was written were characterized as being Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts (which included all the territory up through what we now know as Maine).

 

Small states in terms of population included Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New Jersey and the other states.

 

I'm going to dig around a few minutes and try to come up with population stats in 1789.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I am undecided, tho, whether the Republicans would accept him running again, or go a different direction.  If the latter...what about Pence, or is he too tarred with the Trump brush?  Not sure.  Pence would likely be more comfortable with the religious conservatives but not necessarily with the whole MAGA crowd.  But...someone can take that up, and push all the same buttons.  It need not be Trump.

 

I doubt it really matters whether Republicans (meaning the party leadership, not the general Republican voter) would or would not accept him running again.  They didn't really want to accept him in 2016 - but they sure got him anyway.  Yeah, it need not be Trump - but try telling that to Trump.  

 

I rather like the idea of distracting the (hopefully soon to be ex) Toddler-in-Chief with building his own network.  Let him rant and rave and throw tantrums all he wants, as long as he doesn't have any actual control of public policy.

 

[Edit to change 'power' to 'actual control of public policy']

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

I rather like the idea of distracting the (hopefully soon to be ex) Toddler-in-Chief with building his own network.  Let him rant and rave and throw tantrums all he wants, as long as he doesn't have any actual control of public policy.

 

I rather like the idea of distracting him with criminal charges.  :)  But that's just me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the meme that the Electoral College was to protect slavery because the slave states were the low population states

 

1790 census information 

https://web.archive.org/web/20141121134738/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tabs15-65.pdf

 

Virginia 691,937    total slave population 287,959

Pennsylvania 434,373    total slave population 3,737

Massachusetts 378,787 + 96,540 in the District of Maine    total slave population 0

North Carolina 393,751    total slave population 100,572

New York 340,120    total slave population 21,324

Maryland 319,728    total slave population 103,036

South Carolina 249,073    total slave population 107,094

Connecticut 237,946    total slave population 2,764

New Jersey 184,139    total slave population 11,423

New Hampshire 141,885    total slave population 158

Georgia 82,548    total slave population 29,264

Rhode Island 68,825    total slave population 948

Delaware 59,096    total slave population 8,887

 

Note that slaves were counted where they were. And that it was legal for slaves to follow their owners around so if an owner who resided in a slave state was "temporarily" living in a free state, the slave could accompany him. So that's why there's slave counts in nominally free states.

 

But since slaves couldn't vote, subtract them out to see if the slave states were low population states and free states were high population states.

 

Massachusetts 475,327 free

Pennsylvania 430,636 free

Virginia 403,978 slave

New York 318,796 free

North Carolina 293,179 slave

Connecticut 235,182 free

Maryland 216,692 slave

New Jersey 172,716 free

South Carolina 141,979 slave

New Hampshire 141,727 free

Georgia 53,284 slave

Rhode Island 67,877 free

Delaware 50,209 slave

 

For the top six most populous states, there's 4 free and 2 slave.

 

But the claim is that slave states were the least populous states so they demanded the Electoral College to protect them from the ravages of democracy so we have to look at the least populous states to see if the claim is true.

 

So looking at the six least populous states, there's 3 free states and 3 slave states. 

 

I'd say that myth is busted.

 

(That was a hell of a lot of work for not much return. I guess I'll have to bask in the glow of work well done.)

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

I think Trump will probably be sniping from the sideline, using his status as an ex-President to compel the media to listen.  Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if he became a Fox News contributor.

 

I am undecided, tho, whether the Republicans would accept him running again, or go a different direction.  If the latter...what about Pence, or is he too tarred with the Trump brush?  Not sure.  Pence would likely be more comfortable with the religious conservatives but not necessarily with the whole MAGA crowd.  But...someone can take that up, and push all the same buttons.  It need not be Trump.

 

EDIT:  there's a NY Times article on this;  they talk about Trump possibly trying to build a network to rival Fox News.  That's perhaps easier said than done.  But...he also has 88 million Twitter followers.  If nothing else, continuing to harangue there will have influence.

 

There was word in 2016 that Trump had in mind using his failed presidential run that year as publicity to start his own network.

 

I wouldn't be shocked. ONN and NewsMax started their own 24 hour "news" networks with less money and star power than Trump could probably bring to the table.

 

I don't think Trump would try to run again if he loses this year. He would be more likely to sit on the sidelines and claim the election was stolen from him rather than risk losing in the primaries then risk losing again in the general election in 2024.

 

Pence is wayyyy too tarred by being part of the Trump administration. And worse, by being the head of the pretend COVID task force. Eventually we'll get control of the virus by producing PPE and getting it into stores so that people can SEE that there's plenty and by getting people to comply with common sense health practices through not sending constant contradictory messages.

 

And all the behind-the-scenes efforts of the task force to stop the country from dealing effectively with the virus will be made public. 

 

Pence will be lucky if he isn't executed or in jail on criminal charges assuming Trump doesn't grant him a blanket pardon for everything which he did and didn't do while VP. The investigations once started will be essentially on automatic pilot. I can't see Biden stepping in to meddle and stop the DOJ from bringing criminal charges or to pressure the House to end investigations which eventually would force the DOJ to consider charges.

 

I would assume the next generation of the Trump family would be the major players in the 2024 Republican primaries, with the blessing of Donald J. Trump.

 

I'd also assume before next February that Trump would set up things inside the party so that it would be very difficult for anyone to win the Republican nomination without being a member of the Trump family.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with Trump trying to set up a new network now, is the simple proliferation of all-news networks that now exist.  And, is it going to be news, or pure commentary?  

 

The notion that he'd try to force the Party to go with a family member?  Which one?  Don Jr seems a non-entity.  Kushner's been involved...but positively?  Maybe that wouldn't matter.  I think you're right that Trump would *love* to play kingmaker if he loses, I'm just not sure he's got a viable option.  Then again, no one thought he was one last time...or this time.  So who really knows.

 

I had a really terrifying thought earlier.
Just imagine that Biden wins, AND the Republicans get at least 50 seats in the Senate.

Now...imagine Biden is incapacitated in office, or dies.  Harris is the President.

Would the Senate ever consider any nominee for VP?  If the Republicans have 50....Harris is President, there is no VP to break ties.....

Good lord what a mess......

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

The issue with Trump trying to set up a new network now, is the simple proliferation of all-news networks that now exist.  And, is it going to be news, or pure commentary?  

 

The notion that he'd try to force the Party to go with a family member?  Which one?  Don Jr seems a non-entity.  Kushner's been involved...but positively?  Maybe that wouldn't matter.  I think you're right that Trump would *love* to play kingmaker if he loses, I'm just not sure he's got a viable option.  Then again, no one thought he was one last time...or this time.  So who really knows.

 

I had a really terrifying thought earlier.
Just imagine that Biden wins, AND the Republicans get at least 50 seats in the Senate.

Now...imagine Biden is incapacitated in office, or dies.  Harris is the President.

Would the Senate ever consider any nominee for VP?  If the Republicans have 50....Harris is President, there is no VP to break ties.....

Good lord what a mess......

 

In reverse order...

1) Would the Senate ever consider any nominee for VP?

 

25th Amendment

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

 

If Biden dies, there's no upside for McConnell to confirm a VP if he can keep the Republicans in line to turn down every nominee. 

 

I think there'd be considerable political pressure for him to at least vote on nominees. 

 

And I think Harris would just eventually nominate a Republican to become VP if that's what it took to point out how ridiculous McConnell was being if he's voting down one nominee after another. The VP doesn't have to have duties other than break ties in the Senate so there's not a lot of downside for Harris to do that. And frankly, if McConnell isn't even willing to confirm a VP, how much legislation is going to be going through? There's all sorts of never-Trump Republicans and former Republicans who would be happy to have the office.

 

2) Which Trump family member to be the next nominee?

 

As for which Trump family person to be the next nominee, I imagine they'd decide on that themselves behind the scenes. Ivanka is popular with the fringe right. Don Jr. has teased that he'd like it. Kushner would like it. They'd probably have Trump dictate who it would be and guarantee high-level government jobs for the rest to arguably give them experience. And line up who would be next in line afterward. That would work out well at least until Trump himself passes.

 

3) The notion that he'd try to force the Party to go with a family member?

 

Trump has pretty much appointed suck-ups to be on the Republican National Committee, which is the organization which writes the rules for the party. So Trump has got as much as or more control over the party apparatus as the Clintons did when Bill left office...and that's before Trump tries to tinker with it to ensure his legacy.

 

It's only tradition that the RNC doesn't pick a favorite candidate in the Republican primary, endorse him (or her), and financially help him. The RNC could choose to do otherwise. Heck, the RNC could change the rules so it is required that it endorse and fund a candidate during the primaries.

 

The RNC has a lot of ways to pressure the state parties which set the other rules for their primaries. It is only tradition that most primaries are an election. A state could instead choose to have caucuses of party faithful on a particular night across their state. The state could instead choose to have a series of conventions (on precinct level which would appoint delegates to county conventions which would then select delegates to a state convention...and the state convention consisting of the most popular among the party faithful would select that state's choice). The state could instead choose to have the state's equivalent of the RNC appoint a candidate which the state endorses (which was very common before the 1950's).

 

I believe most state parties are free to endorse a particular candidate before their primaries and it is only tradition (and lack of pressure from the national party) that they do not.

 

State parties also have a variety of mechanisms at their disposal which they can use to attempt to keep candidates off of their primary ballots. For example, they could require a certain number of signatures in order to get on the ballot at all and set the threshold so high that no candidate but someone with Trump's name recognition would get on the ballot. Or set the threshold so high that no candidate at all qualifies to be on the ballot, which would leave the state party free to select uncommitted delegates (in this case, Trump delegates) to go to the national convention.

 

All of that wouldn't appear to be too weird to people who don't follow the news closely if the rules are changed so everything is perfectly in order, the national and state parties are solidly supporting their choice of ways to do thing, and multiple conservative news networks are endorsing that way of doing business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

Trump once again in four years? The man is not exactly a fine vintage...more like a bottle of cheap rice vinegar you keep under the sink.

 

I just threw out the stuff under my sink because the drain leaked and most everything was as least slightly moldy.

 

An apt metaphor for Trump.

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...