RBG leaves the stage.

Man the "BUT WITHOUT THE EC THOSE INNER CITY ELITE LIBRULS WILL DESTROY THE HEARTLAND REAL AMERICA" Kool-Aid must taste so good. Like they brought back Ecto-Cooler or Purplesaurus Rex level of good.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
It will ultimately result in the destruction of this nation...be sure.
Click to expand...

For something to be considered "destroyed" it must have been considered working in the past.
And no, "A few rich people thought the US of A were allright the whole time" does not cut it.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
But it goes deeper when you consider the dynamic I already pointed out above. It is already happening that ignorant masses who have taken control of things they know very little about, and are unknowing acting against BOTH the public good and taking away the rights of other citizens.
Click to expand...
Yet these people are in the minority.

Which is why the tyranny of the majority rhetoric is nonsense. The alternative is the tyranny of the minority, not some magic fairyland where the minority is always wise and benevolent. This has never happened outside of the distorted version of history taught in American schools with the purpose of encouraging a belief in American Exceptionalism.

It ultimately will become suicidal, if what little check and balance there is left were to be removed.....
Click to expand...

Making government democratically proportional has nothing to do with checks and balances.
 
angrysoba said:
I definitely agree with gettin rid of the electoral college, but I am not sure the compact really does that. From what I can see, all it does is transfer all state electors to the winner of the popular vote. But isn't it likely that only Democratic states would do that, in which case, does it really give an advantage (I don't know the actual answer to that).
Click to expand...
It does nothing at all until enough states join to guarantee an EC win for the popular-vote winner because even if all states that aren't in the Compact voted the same way the Compact states would still outweigh them. So the target number of electoral votes to activate the Compact is 270, the same target that candidates must hit to win anyway. Right now it has 196 and another 64 are pending (bills introduced but not voted on yet). If the "pending" states pass, it will have 260, leaving 10 to go.

One little catch is that states get slightly different numbers of electoral votes based on the Census every 10 years, so it really should have a buffer above 270 to make sure it isn't above the line in one election and below it in the next. However, since the states that have been quickest to join have been the ones with more urban populations, and the country's population tends to gradually shift toward more urban and less rural, one can expect those adjustments to add more points to the Compact, not take them away. It could even cross the threshold as a result of a Census rather than as a result of more states joining. Also, the urban/rural split regarding which states join and which don't doesn't work cleanly. Colorado, New Mexico, and Illinois are already in, and South Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire are considering.

* * *

Another thing they can do about the Supreme Court instead of expanding & packing is creating term limits, and there's a bill for that right now, introduced by Ro Khanna. I haven't seen how long the terms would be or whether it would be retroactive, though. One nifty advantage is that, once passed, it's harder to reverse or counteract later. It's harder to make a case that term limits are bad and it should be a lifetime appointment than it is to make the case that "well, if they can expand & pack, we can too and now it's our turn".
 
A 10 year term limit, with the option of one single 5 year extension, with the current Justices grandfathered in would work for me.
 
theprestige said:
By all accounts, in one on one meetings, Trump is effective at showing interest in the other person and demonstrating significant knowledge of their background and opinions.
Click to expand...

When he's motivated and has a vested interest, I'm reasonably certain.
 
theprestige said:
By all accounts, in one on one meetings, Trump is effective at showing interest in the other person and demonstrating significant knowledge of their background and opinions.
Click to expand...

Well, not all accounts.

But according to Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, the conversation did not go well, as he said Trump gave him little chance to express his views and appeared to have no interest in what he was trying to say.

“He didn’t give me an opportunity to even speak,” Floyd told MSNBC on Saturday. “It was hard. I was trying to talk to him, but he just kept, like, pushing me off, like ‘I don’t want to hear what you’re talking about.’

“And I just told him, I want justice. I said that I couldn’t believe that they committed a modern-day lynching in broad daylight.”
Click to expand...
 
johnny karate said:
They have already been doing a version of this at the state level.

“Implausible” doesn’t apply to Republicans anymore.
Click to expand...

I remember that. I didn't know they were sharing their skills.

The GOP has been doing everything they could to promote minority rule since as far back as the TX gerrymandering when the Democrats fled the state to prevent a quorum because the Republicans, pushed by Tom Delay were trying to change the districting in between Census years.

2003 Texas redistricting

Trump had some bull **** words today about how his latest SCOTUS pick is all about the Constitution and the whole GOP has been trying to impose minority rule every chance they've gotten for decades.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
President Donald Trump has said it is "certainly possible" that his Supreme Court pick will be involved in a ruling revisiting the landmark 1973 decision that legalised abortion in the US.

Mr Trump said he did not discuss abortion rights with Amy Coney Barrett before choosing her for the top court.

But Ms Coney Barrett was "certainly conservative in her views", he said.

Mr Trump said he did not know how the judge would vote on the issue if her nomination was approved.

"Mostly I'm looking for somebody who can interpret the constitution as written. She is very strong on that," Mr Trump said in an interview with Fox & Friends on Sunday.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54317894
Click to expand...

Pandering of the most disingenuous sort.

He doesn't know if she'll hand him reelection. But he certainly has that goal in mind.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
One suggestion I've heard is that Democrats could impeach either Trump again, or Barr before then. Senate rules are that impeachment takes precedent over everything else, so this might work as a delaying tactic.

Seems highly unlikely to me - especially Barr, as he could just resign. But it is a suggestion that's out there.
Click to expand...
The Democrats are better off focusing on Biden winning, and not showing their cards until Jan.

Delaying the installation of Barrett isn't of much value unless one is certain she'll cast some deciding vote installing Trump and I don't believe that is the case.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Really shortsighted thinking there. It will ultimately result in the destruction of this nation...be sure.
In fact the power of the populous cities is already overbalanced and contributing locally to such disasters as the California wildfires.

Should this imbalance reach the extreme case where low populous rural areas have no control at all, it could reach a critically destructive stage pretty damn soon.

There is a dynamic here that transcends party politics. It is a larger social problem resulting from the people with power regarding land management are completely disconnected from the very land that supports them. Huge huge mistakes in judgement happen for this reason.

Of all the ways to destroy this country, most are pretty far fetched, but that one is actually the one that might do it.
Click to expand...
Oh for pity's sake. :rolleyes:

You mean it might destroy minority rule?
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Really? Just dismissed as ridiculous the very foundation of this country? That is an astonishing comment from you considering your last comment to me was thoughtful.
Click to expand...
The foundation of the country is protecting minority rule?

The only Party destroying checks and balances is the one keeping Trump in office.
 
Because he knows that's the #1 subject near and dear to the religious right's heart. He wants to be sure that after she takes the SC bench she doesn't double cross him and vote to support precedent by not overturning Roe v Wade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom