Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Fugus]

I'd say let's just get rid of the electoral college and districting, as well as severely neutering the role of the senate in making laws. Doing all of the above would put more power into the hands of a direct democracy of the people rather than the plutocrats who run the system. But well, we know elections more accurately representing people rather than "regions" or "land" would mean Republicans wouldn't win ever again.

@cubby

In relating to his comment.

I know it would be impossible to change how Senators are elected or anything short of a constitutional amendment. But would it be possible for them to change how their votes are counted so that their votes are no longer equal to one but instead are equal to the number of people they represent? It would help effectively put the Senate as being MUCH more representative of the people given we have it where 1 voter has 66+ times more power than another voter just due to this stuff.


Edit:

And also, with our troop withdraw, would it be possible for US to take the women and children from those areas who want out and accept them as refuges and disperse them among the US and other nations as such when they get to those areas.

At that point, the Taliban could take over to an area with no women or children present beyond what they bring themselves and enjoy that sausage party. Honestly, I think we should have been doing that the moment we realized that it was going to be useless to try and fix that area within any reasonable timeline.

[Benggaul]

@cubby

In relating to his comment.

I know it would be impossible to change how Senators are elected or anything short of a constitutional amendment. But would it be possible for them to change how their votes are counted so that their votes are no longer equal to one but instead are equal to the number of people they represent? It would help effectively put the Senate as being MUCH more representative of the people given we have it where 1 voter has 66+ times more power than another voter just due to this stuff.

Nope. That's what Representatives are.

[Fugus]

Nope. That's what Representatives are.

I understand the numbers of Senators are in the constitution and would need an amendment. But HOW they count the votes in the Senate, is that also spelled out in the constitution or is that something that the Senate can modify?

[Benggaul]

I understand the numbers of Senators are in the constitution and would need an amendment. But HOW they count the votes in the Senate, is that also spelled out in the constitution or is that something that the Senate can modify?

Yes. It's part of the "Great Compromise". Each State gets equally represented (and equal weight in their votes) in the Senate.

[Gaidax]

I guess you just want to ignore "how" they rose to such power or the role the USA plays in that.

You also say we "don't have shit there" but... yeah no we do have a lot of shit there.

Fancy, putting quotes around something I did not even write nor even address.

It does not matter that US supplied the very same mujahedeen in 80s nor it matters that you have some contractors there. It's all pointless - the moment last US soldier is out, they will all gradually vanish, while Taliban will just proceed to take over the government and returning the "country" back to what it was just before the war.

20 years of wasted effort.

[Edge-]

If that is all that matters, then most of Oregon should be allowed to form its own state as well.

And that there is the ONLY reason you want it to be its own state.

They're already represented, even if the person they vote for didn't win. DC has no federal representation, yo.

I think the US was literally created in a war that began due to people being taxed without government representation.

[Machismo]

It just needs to be returned to Maryland and Virginia for voting matters. No need to make it a state.

Nah, let them become a state.

They have no representation.

[cubby]

@cubby

In relating to his comment.

I know it would be impossible to change how Senators are elected or anything short of a constitutional amendment. But would it be possible for them to change how their votes are counted so that their votes are no longer equal to one but instead are equal to the number of people they represent? It would help effectively put the Senate as being MUCH more representative of the people given we have it where 1 voter has 66+ times more power than another voter just due to this stuff.


Edit:

And also, with our troop withdraw, would it be possible for US to take the women and children from those areas who want out and accept them as refuges and disperse them among the US and other nations as such when they get to those areas.

At that point, the Taliban could take over to an area with no women or children present beyond what they bring themselves and enjoy that sausage party. Honestly, I think we should have been doing that the moment we realized that it was going to be useless to try and fix that area within any reasonable timeline.

Technically it would be possible to change how their own votes are counted in their own chamber - i.e. the Senate, if I understand you correctly. It would be a very radical change, of course, but it might fall within the Rules Committee of the Senate. I think they could vote to change how their votes are counted, so to speak.

- - - Updated - - -

If that is all that matters, then most of Oregon should be allowed to form its own state as well.

And that there is the ONLY reason you want it to be its own state.

Oregon is already a state, with full rights and representations.

D.C. is not, hence the conversation.

[YUPPIE]

this man, Joe Biden, just went all in on Russia today. I don't know if I'm late to this but between the new sanctions and telling them to get the fuck out of meetings, I'm interested to see where this escalates soon. This is pretty cool.

[Fugus]

Yes. It's part of the "Great Compromise". Each State gets equally represented (and equal weight in their votes) in the Senate.

Ah, gotcha. Thank you.

Honestly, at this point I would also support having California broken up into about 5 other states equal populations so that they are more equally represented there. Texas as well.

But doubt that would happen either. But get DC and PR as a state would be given the options to have representation.

[Milchshake]

Remember, The Justice Democrats and friends spend the last few years saying the Hillary MEdicare plan was MuRDER for 40 MIlLLion !


"Sanders said in an interview that he is arguing for lowering the age of Medicare eligibility to 55 or 60 and expanding the program for seniors so it covers dental, vision and hearing care."

So this is just what they’re going to do isn’t it? Pretend they haven’t been wrong about everything for five years and steal all the plans they said weren’t good enough?

This wasn't painfully obvious from the beginning that this was their plan. Everything Dems do is bad unless they can take credit for them.


I'm still suspicious of Justice Dems. That somehow they're a Peter Thiel Inside/Out Op, to disrupt the Left. Making sure that democracy doesnt get in the way of his capitalisms.

Change my mind.

[Kaleredar]

Ah, gotcha. Thank you.

Honestly, at this point I would also support having California broken up into about 5 other states equal populations so that they are more equally represented there. Texas as well.

But doubt that would happen either. But get DC and PR as a state would be given the options to have representation.

Breaking up California would only serve the economic and political interests of republicans, by merit of the fact that creating a bunch of states out of the conservative lower-population, lower-income regions of California would lessen the number of democrat delegates California gets in the house and increase the number of conservative senators by effectively creating new conservative states, while ensuring that the conservatives living in the rich new subdivided states no longer have to pay taxes to fund the poor conservative parts of California.

Splitting up states is unnecessary. Creating new states from territories that have no representation is just fundamentally right, if the people there indeed want it.

[Fugus]

Technically it would be possible to change how their own votes are counted in their own chamber - i.e. the Senate, if I understand you correctly. It would be a very radical change, of course, but it might fall within the Rules Committee of the Senate. I think they could vote to change how their votes are counted, so to speak.

Yeah, what I was describing.

Have it where, for instance, since Wyoming has a population of 578,759, each of their senators votes are worth half that so each would be worth about 289,379 and 289,380 respectively. If the Senate hadn't been so abused for political gain, something so radical would not be necessary to prevent tyranny of the minority.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember, The Justice Democrats and friends spend the last few years saying the Hillary MEdicare plan was MuRDER for 40 MIlLLion !


"Sanders said in an interview that he is arguing for lowering the age of Medicare eligibility to 55 or 60 and expanding the program for seniors so it covers dental, vision and hearing care."

So this is just what they’re going to do isn’t it? Pretend they haven’t been wrong about everything for five years and steal all the plans they said weren’t good enough?

This wasn't painfully obvious from the beginning that this was their plan. Everything Dems do is bad unless they can take credit for them.


I'm still suspicious of Justice Dems. That somehow they're a Peter Thiel Inside/Out Op, to disrupt the Left. Making sure that democracy doesnt get in the way of his capitalisms.

Change my mind.

No quite, Sanders lowering it to something that is better than nothing is not them saying it is great or really even worth dog shit, it is just saying it is less dog shit than what we currently have.

Even Sanders knows that Joe Manchin basically has the party by the balls and it has to get through him first.

- - - Updated - - -

Breaking up California would only serve the economic and political interests of republicans, by merit of the fact that creating a bunch of states out of the conservative lower-population, lower-income regions of California would lessen the number of democrat delegates California gets in the house and increase the number of conservative senators by effectively creating new conservative states, while ensuring that the conservatives living in the rich new subdivided states no longer have to pay taxes to fund the poor conservative parts of California.

Splitting up states is unnecessary. Creating new states from territories that have no representation is just fundamentally right, if the people there indeed want it.

I didn't say splitting up the states by land size, but by population density which gets rid of their ability to screw around like that, especially with a non-partisan commission directing the process.

I wasn't talking about them being able to gerrymander the state lines at their leisure to do it.

It wouldn't create a bunch of conservative states with the populations of Wyoming and then a single or maybe 2 states each with 40% of California's total population in them. It would create 5 states with each state having roughly 20% of California's total population drawn in ways to keep the communities together. Out of that, you would likely get 2 conservative ones at best.

[Themius]

They're already represented, even if the person they vote for didn't win. DC has no federal representation, yo.

I think the US was literally created in a war that began due to people being taxed without government representation.

That’s not how the us was really created though. I don’t like the whole conversation around taxation and the revolution because it ignores soooooo many factors. It also is never mentioned that it was also argued that the colonies already had representation via their wealthy merchants who had political sway (read private industry lobbying) and look to founders who pushed this...

Bunch of rich landowners decrying a progressive tax...

[Edge-]

That’s not how the us was really created though. I don’t like the whole conversation around taxation and the revolution because it ignores soooooo many factors. It also is never mentioned that it was also argued that the colonies already had representation via their wealthy merchants who had political sway (read private industry lobbying) and look to founders who pushed this...

Bunch of rich landowners decrying a progressive tax...

It's far from comprehensive, yes, but it gets to a central point.

And having political sway via merchants is not like, representation.

[Themius]

It's far from comprehensive, yes, but it gets to a central point.

And having political sway via merchants is not like, representation.

It isn’t? I look around our government today and see private corporations have large sway via their lobbies... look to history and we see arguments and many treatises in this very issue.

Lobbying is representation... the interests of billionaire corporations and people are put forward of the populace frequently now and this isn’t a new issue.

When bill gates outright said he wouldn’t run for president because he has a larger impact and more power because of his ability to just fund whatever the fuck effort he wants to push he wasn’t wrong.

To say that lobbying doesn’t equal representation is ridiculous to me especially when we see the results that are lawmakers acting in the interests of lobbies, private interest donors, and their own retirement plans into boards

Or... get this... PRIVATE LOBBYING

When a sugar lobby in America pressures the government to denounce an international opinion and America then threatens to pull funding... you mean that lobby didn’t just get represented?

When a lobby can. BUY THEIR POLICY you don’t think that’s a form of representation of their interest??

[Edge-]

It isn’t? I look around our government today and see private corporations have large sway via their lobbies... look to history and we see arguments and many treatises in this very issue.

The fuck does this have to do with the Revolutionary War?

Lobbying is representation... the interests of billionaire corporations and people are put forward of the populace frequently now and this isn’t a new issue.

You're seeming to focus more on Citizens United which...is an entirely separate issue surrounding the First Amendment and campaign finance.

When bill gates outright said he wouldn’t run for president because he has a larger impact and more power because of his ability to just fund whatever the fuck effort he wants to push he wasn’t wrong.

Yes and no, this isn't an accurate context for his comments. He could be more effective in his goals by remaining a private citizen and leveraging his wealth. Things like working on improved nuclear power generation, combating global disease etc. That's all stuff where he's absolutely going to have a bigger impact with direct involvement rather than having that be a small part of what his overall role would be as president.

When a lobby can. BUY THEIR POLICY you don’t think that’s a form of representation of their interest??

Yo, lobbyists can fuck off and money can get the fuck outta politics. We're on the same page with this, but I'm not sure how we got here from discussing the founding of the nation on a very high level (i.e. not super specific and nuanced).

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1382691449557426179

From @WSJopinion: Big Business has never been a reliable friend of capitalism, and the left turn of many corporate CEOs today is proving this again, writes The Editorial Board https://on.wsj.com/2OTmZAo

Damn, who knew all it took was a moderately progressive (lol) Democrat in office with a razor-thin Democratic majority in the Legislature for The Wall Street Journal to start going all hammer and sickle.

"What? We had big businesses acting in their best interests in a capitalist system when we don't agree with their behaviors. They should be cutting staff and reducing wages to improve profit margins, not supporting voting rights!"

[Themius]

The fuck does this have to do with the Revolutionary War?

Using today's situation of corporate interest to point to the revolution where the crown claimed the colonies had their interest already via their merchants and their sway in parliament there... it's a direct parallel.

You're seeming to focus more on Citizens United which...is an entirely separate issue surrounding the First Amendment and campaign finance.

The argument is that lobbying is tantamount to representation.

Yes and no, this isn't an accurate context for his comments. He could be more effective in his goals by remaining a private citizen and leveraging his wealth. Things like working on improved nuclear power generation, combating global disease etc. That's all stuff where he's absolutely going to have a bigger impact with direct involvement rather than having that be a small part of what his overall role would be as president.

Things like campaigning against public schools and spending tons of money to sway the public after the public already voted against it. Very prop-22esque for a recent example.

[Edge-]

Using today's situation of corporate interest to point to the revolution where the crown claimed the colonies had their interest already via their merchants and their sway in parliament there... it's a direct parallel.

I...guess? I mean, I see a big stretch in this, like, a Flex Armstrong stretch to make this comparison work.

The argument is that lobbying is tantamount to representation.

Lobbying is usually pretty bad, but I think you'd find a witheringly small crowd to buy into this argument.

Things like campaigning against public schools and spending tons of money to sway the public after the public already voted against it. Very prop-22esque for a recent example.

...what? He's not DeVos dude. And I don't like everything he does, but his goals are far better achieved as a private citizen than as president. Presidents are immensely powerful, but also quite limited by both actual laws and more importantly by practical limitations of time. They have the business of being the executive running the country, they can't focus on a few key pet-projects, especially if those are global projects, at the expense of everything else.

This has nothing to do with prop 22, which can still go fuck itself with an irradiated pitchfork.

[Themius]

I...guess? I mean, I see a big stretch in this, like, a Flex Armstrong stretch to make this comparison work.



Lobbying is usually pretty bad, but I think you'd find a witheringly small crowd to buy into this argument.



...what? He's not DeVos dude. And I don't like everything he does, but his goals are far better achieved as a private citizen than as president. Presidents are immensely powerful, but also quite limited by both actual laws and more importantly by practical limitations of time. They have the business of being the executive running the country, they can't focus on a few key pet-projects, especially if those are global projects, at the expense of everything else.

This has nothing to do with prop 22, which can still go fuck itself with an irradiated pitchfork.

He's not DeVos but he did exactly that... https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...harter-groups/

And this isn't even the first time he's been throwing money behind charters while taking issues with public schools

The Microsoft co-founder gave millions of dollars to see a charter school law approved despite multiple failed ballot referendums. And his private foundation not only helped create the Washington State Charter Schools Association, but has at times contributed what amounts to an entire year’s worth of revenues for the 5-year-old charter advocacy group.

All told, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given about $25 million to the charter group that is credited with keeping the charter schools open after the state struck down the law, and then lobbying legislators to revive the privately run, publicly funded schools.

It is a stretch to connect private merchants who have sway over parliament to today's corporate interests having sway over our politics?