|
Automata 10 Pack posted:how did you think trump won the primaries relentlessly throwing red meat and taking all sides of every issue Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Sep 11, 2022 |
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
and where did he start throwing red meat and made a name for himself?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:and where did he start throwing red meat and made a name for himself? Every time anyone pointed a TV camera at him for any reason?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:and where did he start throwing red meat and made a name for himself? Pretty much every campaign rally, interview, and social media.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Whomever you think won debates won the debates. There's no objective measure. Obviously the absolute measures of polling are wildly inaccurate and untrustworthy, but there were noticeable bumps for Clinton after every debate. I'm pretty sure Biden had one as well, which is why there will never be another presidential debate ever again
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
Trump after the first debate had a giant spike and the rest of the Republicans nosedived. Debates do matter. That’s why the Republicans don’t want to do them anymore. The blindspot was 100% buying the lie that “moderate” republicans weren’t going to vote for Trump, and the Democrats putting their energy in trying to flip red states instead while ignoring the swing states. Hillary never campaigned in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Lmao. Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
And then Liberals tried to excuse that as “Well there’s economic anxiety and the moderates didn’t believe Trump was going to hurt everybody.” And then Trump hurt everybody for four years and they voted for him again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Trump after the first debate had a giant spike and the rest of the Republicans nosedived. Debates do matter. That’s why the Republicans don’t want to do them anymore. So we've gone from "trump won every debate" to "trump won the first GOP debate." Got some numbers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
A few people here really think amending the constitution in this political climate is doable? Especially from any angle that even has a whiff of progressive ideology? I could almost see it happening but it would definitely come for the right side of the aisle if it did and would have some sort of Worship The Military Stand for the Flag USA USA USA Gun Ownership element attached to it. Or something cruel like making it easier to implement the death penalty and fast track executions. You have to be living on another planet to think that we're going to get 75% of the states in this country to agree or ratify anything at all, let alone to abolish the electoral college, which is the only way any Republican in the last 30 years has become president, managed to stack SCOTUS and is even viable. The Republicans don't want to and the Democrats lack the will (assuming that even they even want to, which I'm not sure they do). Bet your sweet rear end that if the Dems were the ones benefiting from the EC, that loving bill wanting to get rid of it and all the RWM pundits pushing to get rid of it would be all we hear about. the EC would be labeled an affront to democracy and freedom itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
Trump absolutely won the Republican primary debates. It was just him endlessly clowning on a bunch of empty suits with no spine. A carnival barker who withheld no punches against a room full of rich assholes who didn't know how to deal with someone who'd just shout over them after a life spent in respectful business meetings, congressional sessions and golf games. For the Democrat vs Republican debates Hillary won that she showed she was the adult in the room and everyone left or centrist wanted. Even a chunk of the Republican political machine was all "Yeah, I can work with that." Meanwhile Trump won by showing he was a racist, sexist baffoon which his voters wanted and the media drooled over. Both sides wanted such different things in the D/R Presidential debates that both sides basically won.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:A few people here really think amending the constitution in this political climate is doable? Especially from any angle that even has a whiff of progressive ideology? I could almost see it happening but it would definitely come for the right side of the aisle if it did and would have some sort of Worship The Military Stand for the Flag USA USA USA Gun Ownership element attached to it. Or something cruel like making it easier to implement the death penalty and fast track executions. Go back and reread the actual discussion and claims in question, as opposed to the ones you've made up to attack people. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:A few people here really think amending the constitution in this political climate is doable? I heard one plan that sounds plausible to me to modify state constitutions to say they will allocate their electoral votes to whatever candidate winds the popular vote, and that the amendment will only be in effect if states with the majority of electoral votes have a similar amendment. That plan is still plodding along but it seems plausible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:I heard one plan that sounds plausible to me to modify state constitutions to say they will allocate their electoral votes to whatever candidate winds the popular vote, and that the amendment will only be in effect if states with the majority of electoral votes have a similar amendment. That is the NPVIC, which has signed up all the states that would gain power and is having trouble attracting states that would lose power. It’s also unclear how enforceable it would be, considering the varying degrees of freedom electors have to be faithless
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
It's been a while since I read the numbers so maybe it's changed but last time I looked Republicans were horrifyingly close to being able to call a constitutional convention all on their own, and the imagination balks at forecasting what kind of evil poo poo they'd come up with. They're working to make this functionally a single party country just with the courts alone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:A few people here really think amending the constitution in this political climate is doable? Especially from any angle that even has a whiff of progressive ideology? I could almost see it happening but it would definitely come for the right side of the aisle if it did and would have some sort of Worship The Military Stand for the Flag USA USA USA Gun Ownership element attached to it. Or something cruel like making it easier to implement the death penalty and fast track executions. The only chance that the EC had of being amended in our lifetime was for Kerry to win Ohio and the 2004 election while losing the national vote. That coming back to back with Bush winning in 2000 would have got both sides on board.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 03:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:So we've gone from "trump won every debate" to "trump won the first GOP debate." Got some numbers? With Hillary the post debate poll numbers were probably in her favor (ain’t bothering to look), but polling was so off for her that I have a hard time thinking that would persuade me of anything. There was the “Shy Trumpster” phenomenon going on. People didn’t want to admit that they thought it was really cool that Trump sexually assaulted a lady, stood over Hillary like a ghoul, and bragged about not paying taxes. But they ate that poo poo up and he would go on to klobber her. 100% gut posting here but whatever. Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Waffles are also good. The debates were a boon for Trump in the primaries and all the polling pointed to that. I’m on my phone and all the data shows lines that correspond to it, but they don’t specify the dates enough so it’s just eyeballing (like this). but if you find data that proves otherwise then please post it here. That would be a reason not to trust the numbers in an absolute sense, but it seems less likely to me that they were inexplicably even more shy after the debates, instead of her just doing relatively better at those points I agree that polls should be taken with many, many grains of salt, but I think they're still useful relative to themselves
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
Polling definitely indicated that Hillary "won" the three debates, and 538's model showed Clinton's odds of victory rose from 54% to 87% (her peak) right after the third debate (Though these numbers were also assuredly influenced by the release of the Access Hollywood tape). Of course, none of this ended up mattering since it was still a month before the election, which was plenty of time for many people's latent distrust of Clinton to overcome their dislike of Trump, particularly after the Comey announcement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The only chance that the EC had of being amended in our lifetime was for Kerry to win Ohio and the 2004 election while losing the national vote. There was a brief moment on election night 2012 where it looked like Obama was going to win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote and I remember thinking it'd be great for the same reason but whoops he won both and no one gave a poo poo about fixing our stupid system
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Waffles are also good. The debates were a boon for Trump in the primaries and all the polling pointed to that. I’m on my phone and all the data shows lines that correspond to it, but they don’t specify the dates enough so it’s just eyeballing (like this). but if you find data that proves otherwise then please post it here. He lost the popular vote and just barely eeked out an EC victory. It's clearly a win, but hardly by enough to say he clobbered her. In fact, the only election win big enough to be called that in this century is the 2008 election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
I still remember when they did the gender-swapped debates and it shoulda set off alarm bells when people found Female Trump oddly likeable and Male Hillary a boring, disingenuous nerd. It really comes down to that Hillary and all the freaks who actually like her believed she was cruising effortlessly to an overdue coronation, and it showed. To the point where she lost with the popular vote because her campaign was too focused on running up the score.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Go back and reread the actual discussion and claims in question, as opposed to the ones you've made up to attack people. No one is disputing that constitutional amendments happened in the past. However, the key word in that is "past". The political climate has radically shifted over the last 50 years. Today the political climate is at a point where only 30 percent of Republicans up for election in November are willing to say without reservation that Biden fairly won the 2020 election. The mechanisms which used to work have no realistic path to being used now or at any point within sight. Pretending otherwise is just playing make-believe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I still remember when they did the gender-swapped debates and it shoulda set off alarm bells when people found Female Trump oddly likeable and Male Hillary a boring, disingenuous nerd. Running up the score wasn’t the wrong move. They were concerned about Hillary winning via the EC and trump taking the popular. They though (correctly in retrospect) that trump would go nuts and refuse to concede if that had happened. Unfortunately they failed to try to get the EC as well. Oops. Must have missed that in slack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:No one is disputing that constitutional amendments happened in the past. However, the key word in that is "past". The political climate has radically shifted over the last 50 years. Today the political climate is at a point where only 30 percent of Republicans up for election in November are willing to say without reservation that Biden fairly won the 2020 election. The mechanisms which used to work have no realistic path to being used now or at any point within sight. Pretending otherwise is just playing make-believe. Yep, no, you're still not reading the actual start of the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 07:24
|
|
|
An amendment removing the Senate is not comparable to any historical amendment. You'd need Nebraska and friends to go "Government listens to what we want much too often. We want to de facto remove all of our ability to influence the federal government". It's not like past voting expansion amendments where every state has roughly the same fraction of women and 18-20 year olds so that no state gained or lost relative power. Women's suffrage also happened incrementally as states allowed their own populations to vote. Lowering the voting age for federal elections was a normal federal law, the 26th amendment only granted voting rights for state elections (and stopped Congress from reversing itself) In any situation where amending away the Senate is vaguely plausible, you don't have an immediate reason to because the rural states are behaving
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 07:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yep, no, you're still not reading the actual start of the conversation. Could you try explaining why you think that people aren't reading the thread? It seems like there's a disconnect between what you and other folks are arguing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 08:33
|
|
|
As I and evilweasel have explained multiple times, the constitution, including the specific provision at issue that is the basis of senate representation, can in fact be changed, regardless of the entrenched provision. You do not need "a new constitution" to address the problem of the senate. Repeatedly proclaiming futility based on nothing is useless and doesn't address the root claim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 08:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:As I and evilweasel have explained multiple times, the constitution, including the specific provision at issue that is the basis of senate representation, can in fact be changed, regardless of the entrenched provision. You do not need "a new constitution" to address the problem of the senate. Repeatedly proclaiming futility based on nothing is useless and doesn't address the root claim. Are you actually trying to explain that amendments exist and are technically possible to a thread of people saying that passing one is no longer practically possible?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 09:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:As I and evilweasel have explained multiple times, the constitution, including the specific provision at issue that is the basis of senate representation, can in fact be changed, regardless of the entrenched provision. You do not need "a new constitution" to address the problem of the senate. Repeatedly proclaiming futility based on nothing is useless and doesn't address the root claim. OK, I agree with you that it is technically possible to reform the senate via constitutional amendment. However, I don't see it as possible in practice given our current political climate. This is the point that other people seem to be making as well. Could you please address that argument? In practical terms, how do you propose overcoming the immense hurdles in the way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 09:42
|
|
|
The way to get a senate-fixing amendment passed is to have sufficient widespread national popular support, a trifecta in DC, and then to split California into 10,000 carefully gerrymandered micro states for a week. Yes, that's an outrageous abuse of constitutional process, hence the need for widespread popular support.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
haveblue posted:That is the NPVIC, which has signed up all the states that would gain power and is having trouble attracting states that would lose power. It’s also unclear how enforceable it would be, considering the varying degrees of freedom electors have to be faithless Enforceability concerns for the NPVIC are more about whether it's the sort of interstate state compact that requires Congressional approval per Art. I. Were the NPVIC to pass, the concerns about loyalty of individual electors would be the exact same as now - each campaign would nominate a slate of electors of local loyalists and operatives, just the ones officially appointed by the state would be that of the campaign winning the national, not state, popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:As I and evilweasel have explained multiple times, the constitution, including the specific provision at issue that is the basis of senate representation, can in fact be changed, regardless of the entrenched provision. You do not need "a new constitution" to address the problem of the senate. Repeatedly proclaiming futility based on nothing is useless and doesn't address the root claim. They’re talking about the current political climate. They’re not saying there isn’t a process to change the constitution, just saying that with the current climate, it may as well be impossible. Or would you rather they say “improbable”?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
One thing I’ve wondered in terms of fixing the senate is keeping the filibuster, but changing the parliamentary rules so that the ability to stop the filibuster is tied to population. Instead of making it that 60% of senators are required to go through a veto, senators who represent 60% of the US would be required to break vetos with each of a state’s senators equaling half of their state’s population. I don’t think it would ever happen regardless, but I am curious if there is anything stopping it since the filibuster is just a parliamentary rule and not really impacted by the Constitution. If you look at our current senate make up, it also wouldn’t be a slam dunk for Liberals since you would still have the Manchins loving things up. But seems better than our current scenario. And it seems less perilous than an amendment or convention. Anyway I hope you enjoyed this fan fiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Idea: combine The Senate and The House into one body.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
any solution in this vein requires powerful politicians and their monetary support to give up power
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:any solution in this vein requires powerful politicians and their monetary support to give up power (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:OK, I agree with you that it is technically possible to reform the senate via constitutional amendment. However, I don't see it as possible in practice given our current political climate. This is the point that other people seem to be making as well. Could you please address that argument? In practical terms, how do you propose overcoming the immense hurdles in the way? Yeah, I'm not going to accept the combined shift in claims with the insults that have accompanied them. The original claim was that it would be easier to create a new constitution, which no, it isn't. The only element of this claim with any merit was that the relevant clause is protected or "entrenched". Responding to the explanation of how it can be done with "it's impossible", "You have to be living on another planet" and "playing make-believe" reflects a lack of attention to the prior claims actually under discussion. Like other constitutional amendments, the process of getting senate representation changed would require mass consensus and a sea change in the status quo...which is a thing that happens, but takes a very long time and a lot of effort. Fixating on and demanding that others accept the political status quo as immovable, that democratic shifts are futile, just serves to wreck discussion of the specifics of how change can occur. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
SniHjen posted:Idea: combine The Senate and The House into one body. I refuse to give Cruz anything he wants/is for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Is it possible to at least have them try out some of these rule changes in Triple-A congress and see how it goes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
I think a mass shift in priorities and ideals (or simply mass upheaval) is absolutely necessary for any of the real change we desperately need. However, huge amounts of Americans agreeing with specific informed demands regarding the mechanics of our institutions... and furthermore the powers that be not entirely diffusing and misdirecting those efforts... certainly not probable! Wouldn't mass upheaval (admittedly less directed, ordered, and constructive) be a more likely? Historically and contextually is sudden radical change the result of the specific will of the people being recognized, or more a desperate existential concession of the system to preserve its own legitimacy? I know I'd get more flies with "OUR DEMANDS ARE MET OR WE BURN THIS poo poo DOWN" then I would selling "one weird constitutional convention dance to fix things that our leaders will definitely allow to happen (the team you don't like hates it!)" It just doesn't seem likely to me real change in this environment is an ordered democratic process realized, rather than concessions given under threat of complete illegitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 17:40
|
|
