Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
InDefenseOfPOMO

What are Democrats thinking?

Recommended Posts

The Terrible Travis
4 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

What was wrong with my presentation? There are two overlying systems at work when it comes to voting in the US. Clarity is better than vagueness.

What was wrong with it is that you claimed I used the appeal to authority logical fallacy when I did not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gisiebob

did the spruce goose only  fly the onetime? was it even real? I don't think they had vine back then so I don't  know how to tell  for sure

I wonder if you could have  a totally all-wood plane. no metal or plastic or anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nevyn
23 minutes ago, The Terrible Travis said:

What was wrong with it is that you claimed I used the appeal to authority logical fallacy when I did not. 

I've addressed that twice now and I'm not repeating myself except to say I'm not repeating myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
12 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

I've addressed that twice now and I'm not repeating myself except to say I'm not repeating myself. 

Whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Get a room, you guys.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gisiebob

my room is filled with models of the spuce goose, made out of willow. in varying scales. is this my room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nevyn
59 minutes ago, Sally said:

Get a room, you guys.  :lol:

This is my room. I've decided to live here. 

Share this post


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

Get a room, you guys.  :lol:

2 hours ago, Nevyn said:

This is my room. I've decided to live here. 

 

I'm sorry. That was rude of me. I'm trying to do my best here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO

An asymmetry between the three branches of the federal government has emerged. I would say that it began with the U.S. Supreme Court intervening in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.

 

Instead of keeping each other in check the three branches are obstructing each other, bypassing each other, and playing a game of chess rather than governing.

 

Congress is on the short end.

 

Gerrymandering sure does not seem to have made members of the House very powerful. Gerrymandering may homogenize Congressional districts and keep incumbents in power, but what are they able to accomplish? Government shutdowns and other obstruction seems to be the most that the House does these days.

 

If Democrats want a progressive agenda carried out by non-male non-whites then here is a strategy: focus on securing a majority in the House; fill the House with progressives, women and minorities; and then work with the president who was able to defeat Trump: a moderate white male.

 

What could be more progressive than making the federal officials closest to citizens, U.S. House members, responsive to the people again?

 

Alas, the Democrats seem to have tunnel vision and are determined to put anybody other than a white male in the Oval Office. Again, what are they thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
36 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

If Democrats want a progressive agenda carried out by non-male non-whites then here is a strategy: focus on securing a majority in the House; fill the House with progressives, women and minorities; and then work with the president who was able to defeat Trump: a moderate white male.

 

Perhaps you don't remember that the House is now democratic, and pretty much filled with progressives, women, and minorities?  That's what happened in the election last year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 5/15/2019 at 3:55 PM, Nevyn said:

The popular vote is an interesting metric but little else.

 

I think that the whole Electoral College controversy is a distraction over what should be a non-issue.

 

However, if those who are saying that the popular vote in 2016 represented the will of the people are going to be consistent then they should acknowledge that Hillary Clinton got less than 50% of the popular vote; Bill Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote; and Al Gore got less than 50% of the popular vote in 2000.

 

Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan (twice) and George H.W. Bush all got more than 50% of the popular vote in their victories.

 

Therefore, in 4 out of the last 7 presidential elections less than 50% of Americans who bothered to vote supported the winner of the popular vote. Meanwhile, in the 4 presidential elections prior to those 7 more than 50% of Americans who bothered to vote supported the winner of the popular vote.

 

The two cases that have angered liberals/progressives and driven them to calling the Electoral College an illiberal, undemocratic sham that must be abolished are 2000 and 2016. The former was a photo finish in the Electoral vote--the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to decide whose nose crossed the finish line first. The latter, on the other hand, was won by a comfortable margin in the Electoral vote.

 

Add all of this up and Hillary Clinton does not look like a candidate who represented the will of the people. Absolutely no statistic/number from the election results suggests that she was liked by voters.

 

And let's not forget that even voters in her party's primary were not enthusiastic about her. The DNC had to use tricks like scheduling televised debates in conflict with NFL football games to contain her challenger's rise in popularity. Emails leaked right before the convention showed that they conspired to make her the party's nominee rather than let the campaigns and the voters decide.

 

There's more. That other case that angers liberals/progressives and has them saying that the Electoral College is liberal democracy's public enemy number one was illiberal and undemocratic in their candidates favor. Ralph Nader and his running mate were excluded from televised debates (unlike Ross Perot in 1992). If the process was truly democratic then Al Gore might not have received as many votes and we might not be talking about popular versus electoral vote.

 

Democrats--tone deaf, in my estimation--might want to take a look in the mirror and see what kind of candidates they are nominating for the presidency and the kinds of campaigns they are running rather than blaming the process for their failures. The process is the same for Republicans, yet they find ways to win the presidency most of the time.

Share this post


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

Perhaps you don't remember that the House is now democratic, and pretty much filled with progressives, women, and minorities?  That's what happened in the election last year.  

 

That was not Democrats' strategy.

 

Their strategy was to rig the system to give the nomination to a flawed, unpopular candidate just because she was a woman. People in the Party even went as far as saying that there is "a special place in Hell" for women who voted for her male challenger in the primary.

 

It worked--in the primary.

 

But it backfired in the general election. Not only did a horrible opponent completely unfit to be President emerge victorious, the Republicans took control of Congress, took control of many governor's mansions and state legislatures, and threatened to give the Supreme Court a conservative majority. It may have been the worst performance ever by one party in one election.

 

Making the U.S. House of Representatives the center of a progressive revolution was never their strategy. The midterm victories were about undoing the damage of November, 2016, not about the people. The people are still angry at the establishment and looking for non-establisment alternatives.

 

I do not see what would be wrong with a Joe Biden presidency with a progressive House of Representatives representing the people for a change (being for the people rather than against Trump).

 

We need a president who will work with Congress, and in a bipartisan way, for a change.

Share this post


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

An asymmetry between the three branches of the federal government has emerged.

I do not think that is a new phenomenon. Looking through history shows plenty of times when the Presidency was more powerful, and other times when Congress was more powerful. The Supreme Court is a newcomer to the game though, but they have been slowly gaining power since they were first created. But the Supreme Court has always been an odd one. I wish that there would be more people on the Supreme Court and that some of them should be non-partisan (let's say, 7 non-partisans and 8 partisans, the partisans divided based on percentage of vote each party gained), because deciding nation-shaping events on a 5-4 margin is dangerous. Dividing by 8-7 is also dangerous, but hopefully less likely.

 

6 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

It may have been the worst performance ever by one party in one election.

Definitely not, 1932 comes to mind. There are others but that one in particular was extreme. 1964 wasn't a good year for the Republicans either. 1976 election also brought the last time any party controlled a super-majority in both bodies of Congress, so while the election as a whole might not have been a defeat as 1932 was, but considering a party had a super-majority in both houses of Congress, that was a fairly-large loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iff
On 5/17/2019 at 2:36 PM, Aebt said:

But the Supreme Court has always been an odd one. I wish that there would be more people on the Supreme Court and that some of them should be non-partisan (let's say, 7 non-partisans and 8 partisans, the partisans divided based on percentage of vote each party gained),

How would the non-partisans be selected?

 

Though for a lifetime appointment, a simple majority of senators is not enough as was the case for gorsuch and kavanagh. A supreme court judge is for life so a majority of random combination of senators sitting together for 2 years is not sufficient.

 

Rbg was voted in by 96 senators, in comparison kavanagh had 50 votes, Thomas had 52 votes, gorsuch had 54 votes. 

 

It really needs to be 60 senators

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aebt
4 hours ago, iff said:

How would the non-partisans be selected?

 

Though for a lifetime appointment, a simple majority of senators is not enough as was the case for gorsuch and kavanagh. A supreme court judge is for life so a majority of random combination of senators sitting together for 2 years is not sufficient.

How to select non-partisans, hm... I do not quite know. I would hope that you could select them like we were used to (until Trump that is I fear) select Fed Governors. You tend to get in based off of your standing as a economic scholar/someone with an in-depth knowledge of economic affairs, political identification less important. E.g. Bernanke, Republican re-appointed as Chairman by Obama or Paul Volcker, appointed by both Carter and Reagan and served in other economic capacities under many presidents until Obama. 

Maybe something similar for legal scholars/people with an in-depth knowledge of legal affairs but not necessarily federal judges? Have them confirmed by Congress, but if you find someone as an eminent specialist in law, as opposed to a federal judge, it would reduce the political influence making them more non-partisan in character.

 

That is another thing, giving lifetime terms based off a simple majority that only exists for two years is dangerous and sounds like it could lead to the court-packing scheme of John Adams and the outgoing Federalists.

Share this post


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

That is another thing, giving lifetime terms based off a simple majority that only exists for two years is dangerous and sounds like it could lead to the court-packing scheme of John Adams and the outgoing Federalists

Rick perry suggested when he ran in 2012 (or was it 2008) for the republican nominee suggested appointees being for 18 year terms so each presidential term gets 2 appointments.

 

It would also discourage presidents going for nominees in their 40s because this is an attempt to get their nominee on the court deciding the constituitionality of the laws for 30-40 years. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Rick perry suggested when he ran in 2012 (or was it 2008) for the republican nominee suggested appointees being for 18 year terms so each presidential term gets 2 appointments.

2012 I think.
I dislike Rick Perry (for many many reasons), but that is not too bad of a suggestion. Maybe he has at least one redeeming quality.

 

It would suffer from a problem of when you schedule the appointments, and some other logistical issues, but I like some of the thought that went into it. It would also make the Supreme Court nominations maybe too regular, and people would push more extreme canidates into the position. But combined with a 2/3 majority vote for confirmation or something similar it may not be too bad of an idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 5/17/2019 at 9:36 AM, Aebt said:

I do not think that is a new phenomenon. Looking through history shows plenty of times when the Presidency was more powerful, and other times when Congress was more powerful. The Supreme Court is a newcomer to the game though, but they have been slowly gaining power since they were first created.

 

My point is that if progressive Democrats want sweeping change then a powerful U.S. House of Representatives--the body with members closest to and most responsive to the people--is necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
35 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

My point is that if progressive Democrats want sweeping change then a powerful U.S. House of Representatives--the body with members closest to and most responsive to the people--is necessary.

We have one now.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

We have one now.  

 

Compared to the Senate, executive branch and judicial branch, no, we don't.

Share this post


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

 

Compared to the Senate, executive branch and judicial branch, no, we don't.

That doesn't make sense according to what you  said, which was specifically about  the House.  We weren't talking about the Senate, the Presidency, or the judicial branch, so there's no reason for comparison.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nineGardens
On 5/15/2019 at 9:55 PM, Nevyn said:

They didn't. The popular vote is an interesting metric but little else. The States elect their representatives to look after the interests of the people of their states, which means they cast their vote according to the majority winner in their state. Why should the people who live in different states get to influence that?

This feels disingenuous.

 

Look- it is TOTALLY valid to say "We have this voting system, if you win according to the rules of this voting system, then you win". I've got no problem with that.

 

If the record of history says that a person with higher popular vote lost, and you claim that such a thing LITERALLY DIDN'T HAPPEN then this is fucked up. And if you do it such as you did early with simply "They didn't" and no more,  then that seems... like you're being deliberately being obtuse.

 

EDIT: did this replying not realizing I was on page 1 of 3 of the discussion.

As it is, looks like what I said here has already been discussed, and there's no point me getting involved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This feels disingenuous.

 

Look- it is TOTALLY valid to say "We have this voting system, if you win according to the rules of this voting system, then you win". I've got no problem with that.

 

If the record of history says that a person with higher popular vote lost, and you claim that such a thing LITERALLY DIDN'T HAPPEN then this is fucked up. And if you do it such as you did early with simply "They didn't" and no more,  then that seems... like you're being deliberately being obtuse.

I am? Please, tell me more about myself. 

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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...