1. #7181
    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.

  2. #7182
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    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.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  3. #7183
    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.

  4. #7184
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    22,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    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.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  5. #7185
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Milchshake View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Fugus; 2021-04-15 at 04:55 PM.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  6. #7186
    Banned Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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...

  7. #7187
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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.

  8. #7188
    Banned Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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??
    Last edited by Themius; 2021-04-15 at 05:11 PM.

  9. #7189
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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!"

  10. #7190
    Banned Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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.

  11. #7191
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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.

  12. #7192
    Banned Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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?

  13. #7193
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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
    This is a real roundabout argument given that it started from you complaining that Gates very rightfully pointed out that he's better equipped to accomplish his goals as a private citizen leveraging his wealth. I mean, I've been clear I'm hardly a fan of everything he pushes for, but he's unarguably also done some absolutely incredible work when it comes to fighting diseases and was long one of the louder voices warning governments about the inevitability of global pandemics.

    Like yeah, fuck his push for charter schools, especially as voters continually reject them. But that doesn't mean he's more powerful than a president, he's objectively not more powerful overall (he doesn't have a shiny nuke button, for example), but has a greater chance of accomplishing his specific goals while not president. This is fairly basic stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    It is a stretch to connect private merchants who have sway over parliament to today's corporate interests having sway over our politics?
    I'm vaguely aware of some of that, but would need more historical context from you to make the connection as you state it.

  14. #7194
    I am Murloc! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    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.
    I mean, it's pretty explicitly stated in the Constitution:
    US Constitution, Article I, Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  15. #7195
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Yeah, so it’d take a full on amendment to change how the Senate works.

  16. #7196
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    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.
    The equality of votes for Senators, and the inequality in the number of people each represents, is a feature, not a bug. The Senate is equal representation, regardless of size/population, by design, the House is where proportional representation is supposed to occur, but the stupid caps on the number of House members have gutted its ability to actually represent people proportionately. Tough it'd be kinda crazy having like, 1,000 House members or something.

  17. #7197
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    The equality of votes for Senators, and the inequality in the number of people each represents, is a feature, not a bug. The Senate is equal representation, regardless of size/population, by design, the House is where proportional representation is supposed to occur, but the stupid caps on the number of House members have gutted its ability to actually represent people proportionately. Tough it'd be kinda crazy having like, 1,000 House members or something.
    Not necessarily. Going by the Wyoming Rule and the 2010 census numbers it'd only increase it from 435 to 547.

  18. #7198
    I am Murloc! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    The equality of votes for Senators, and the inequality in the number of people each represents, is a feature, not a bug. The Senate is equal representation, regardless of size/population, by design, the House is where proportional representation is supposed to occur, but the stupid caps on the number of House members have gutted its ability to actually represent people proportionately. Tough it'd be kinda crazy having like, 1,000 House members or something.
    UK House of Commons has 650 seats... I'm sure we could figure something out.

    Still is unlikely to happen, because you'd have to get the Representatives to vote to approve a decrease of their individual power.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  19. #7199
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    The equality of votes for Senators, and the inequality in the number of people each represents, is a feature, not a bug. The Senate is equal representation, regardless of size/population, by design, the House is where proportional representation is supposed to occur, but the stupid caps on the number of House members have gutted its ability to actually represent people proportionately. Tough it'd be kinda crazy having like, 1,000 House members or something.
    You’d need to go with some kinda super rep where people have 3+ votes from some states. Otherwise every vote would take 3 hours.

  20. #7200
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    UK House of Commons has 650 seats... I'm sure we could figure something out.
    We could, sure. But given Congress...I have my doubts : P

    Also, if we moved to a more parliamentary system in terms of operation (i.e. chamber sits through arguments and cajoles each other etc.) I'd be way more into CSPAN. Watching some dude with some oversized prints on an easel speak to an empty room doesn't have the same panache, yaknow?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Still is unlikely to happen, because you'd have to get the Representatives to vote to approve a decrease of their individual power.
    Yep, plus the shift largely favoring the more populous liberal states so Republicans would object. Even if it would stand to give them quite a few seats in the more conservative areas of CA etc. It'd hardly be a Democratic sweep, but they'd likely have the edge, and Republicans won't stand for any Democracy enhancements that don't favor the Republican party first and foremost.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    You’d need to go with some kinda super rep where people have 3+ votes from some states. Otherwise every vote would take 3 hours.
    I mean, they could overhaul roll call voting like they do now. You have 10 minutes to vote on the little box in front of you, with all votes recorded digitally with a physical backup so that there's no question over how someone voted. It'd make debate potentially more difficult with more people wanting to get their arguments in so it would either rush some people or extend debate time.

    I'm here for a modern analysis of our system of government and proposals for ways to improve/streamline things.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •