The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[LordMortis]

I think this goes here but it's hard to say any more


https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters

"On March 1st, I informed Fox that I would not renew my contract. The purpose of this message to all of you is twofold:

First, I must thank each of you for the cooperation and support you've shown me over the years. Those working off-camera, the bookers and producers, don't often get the recognition you deserve, but I want you to know that I have always appreciated the challenges you face and the skill with which you master them.

Second, I feel compelled to explain why I have to leave. Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to "support and defend the Constitution," and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform. Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers. Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed.

In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts--who have never served our country in any capacity--dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller--all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of "deep-state" machinations-- I cannot be part of the same organization, even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system of government for profit.

As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin's agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the "nothing-burger" has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true--that's how the Russians do things.. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.

I do not apply the above criticisms in full to Fox Business, where numerous hosts retain a respect for facts and maintain a measure of integrity (nor is every host at Fox News a propaganda mouthpiece--some have shown courage). I have enjoyed and valued my relationship with Fox Business, and I will miss a number of hosts and staff members. You're the grown-ups.

Also, I deeply respect the hard-news reporters at Fox, who continue to do their best as talented professionals in a poisoned environment. These are some of the best men and women in the business..

So, to all of you: Thanks, and, as our president's favorite world leader would say, "Das vidanya.""

Edit: or BAM to Lawbeef....

[El Guapo]

So you've said a couple times that giving smaller states disproportionate representation "has value", but you haven't actually said what that value is.

The value is that in order to have a strong federation of states the states need to be represented as such. There are Michigan way to do things and Massachusetts ways to do things but even together they don't matter much if California expects everyone to do things the California way. Checks and balances. The problem is checks and balances are broken. We run all phases of government like the senate, when the senate should literally hold 1/6th of the equation.

But I think that the change to direct election of Senators reflects a judgment that *people* deserve representation rather than *states* deserving representation. There will always be smaller population regions across the country (which don't neatly coincide with state lines), and people who live there deserve their say, but there's no reason to give an arbitrary group of 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people.

The answer to giving regions more of a say in how they are governed is to devolve more powers to states in areas that won't hurt people in other parts of the country. You could defend block grants in social programs easily that way - if Nebraska really wants to hose its poor, that's ultimately not of major concern to the people of California. But that's not really a reason to give the 500,000ish people in Wyoming as much say as tens of millions in California in areas that properly belong at the federal level.

[LordMortis]

But I think that the change to direct election of Senators reflects a judgment that *people* deserve representation rather than *states* deserving representation. There will always be smaller population regions across the country (which don't neatly coincide with state lines), and people who live there deserve their say, but there's no reason to give an arbitrary group of 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people.

The answer to giving regions more of a say in how they are governed is to devolve more powers to states in areas that won't hurt people in other parts of the country. You could defend block grants in social programs easily that way - if Nebraska really wants to hose its poor, that's ultimately not of major concern to the people of California. But that's not really a reason to give the 500,000ish people in Wyoming as much say as tens of millions in California in areas that properly belong at the federal level.

There is no reason to tax an arbitrary group of 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people. There is no need to concern ourselves with the natural resources of an arbitrary 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people.

What happens when California wants to hose Nebraska's poor? Or pay taxes on corn crops to subsidize fresh water on the west coast to keep lawns green there?

[El Guapo]

But I think that the change to direct election of Senators reflects a judgment that *people* deserve representation rather than *states* deserving representation. There will always be smaller population regions across the country (which don't neatly coincide with state lines), and people who live there deserve their say, but there's no reason to give an arbitrary group of 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people.

The answer to giving regions more of a say in how they are governed is to devolve more powers to states in areas that won't hurt people in other parts of the country. You could defend block grants in social programs easily that way - if Nebraska really wants to hose its poor, that's ultimately not of major concern to the people of California. But that's not really a reason to give the 500,000ish people in Wyoming as much say as tens of millions in California in areas that properly belong at the federal level.

There is no reason to tax an arbitrary group of 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people. There is no need to concern ourselves with the natural resources of an arbitrary 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people.

What happens when California wants to hose Nebraska's poor? Or pay taxes on corn crops to subsidize fresh water on the west coast to keep lawns green there?

I'm confused. My point is that giving disproportionate representation to the people of small population states *is* concerning ourselves with the taxes/natural resources/governance of an arbitrary group of people way more than another arbitrary much larger group of people. Wyoming has a little more than 500,000 residents. That's a little more than the population of Fresno, California (the fifth largest city in California). How concerned should we be with protecting the interests and resources of the people of Fresno? I am sure that they have different values and interests than the people of (say) Los Angeles, or Vermont, or Houston. I am also sure that their interests get swamped by the votes and interests of millions more people both within California and within the United States at large. Is that a problem? If so, why? If that's not, why should we give priority to the interests of the same number of people who just happen to be scattered between some lines in the northwest?

And then there's the double-ridiculousness of effectively giving no say at all to people who live in D.C., which has a greater population than both Wyoming and Vermont. Though that's a somewhat different issue.

[malchior]

But I think that the change to direct election of Senators reflects a judgment that *people* deserve representation rather than *states* deserving representation. There will always be smaller population regions across the country (which don't neatly coincide with state lines), and people who live there deserve their say, but there's no reason to give an arbitrary group of 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people.

The answer to giving regions more of a say in how they are governed is to devolve more powers to states in areas that won't hurt people in other parts of the country. You could defend block grants in social programs easily that way - if Nebraska really wants to hose its poor, that's ultimately not of major concern to the people of California. But that's not really a reason to give the 500,000ish people in Wyoming as much say as tens of millions in California in areas that properly belong at the federal level.

There is no reason to tax an arbitrary group of 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people. There is no need to concern ourselves with the natural resources of an arbitrary 50,000 people as much say as 5 million people.

What happens when California wants to hose Nebraska's poor? Or pay taxes on corn crops to subsidize fresh water on the west coast to keep lawns green there?

And what happens when the opposite happens? This isn't a theory. The minority has been taking resources from the majority for years. Some have taken that as a price for the union but it has become absurd at this point. Tax reform included punishment that targeted individuals in majority states. Also critical projects are being ignored as political retribution.

[LordMortis]

And what happens when the opposite happens? This isn't a theory. The minority has been taking resources from the majority for years. Some have taken that as a price for the union but it has become absurd at this point. Tax reform included punishment that targeted individuals in majority states. Also critical projects are being ignored as political retribution.

Have you not been paying attention? Have not already said we are out of whack and the House of Representatives is completely broken and over the years they've managed to break everything? That was my whole diatribe on Rip. We have failed the system and the system has failed us in return. A minority has taken the country hostage and a minority of that minority is playing them for fools, forcing everyone toe eat the shit sandwich.

[malchior]

You are missing my point. I was pointing out that we have managed to play too much into States Rights. And it has been a disaster for this country. That is why I was arguing that we probably should re-value "states rights" when we see the results we have.

To expand, this isn't limited to only the House since the system is not only the House. The President was elected due to our non-representational electoral college. The Senate created bizarre rules to deal with its non-representational nature. The Courts were not staffed in a normal process. True Everything is out of whack. All for "States rights" and "Limited Government".

[Kraken]

The more he is warned not to do it, the more certain it becomes that he will.

[Fitzy]

I'm confused. My point is that giving disproportionate representation to the people of small population states *is* concerning ourselves with the taxes/natural resources/governance of an arbitrary group of people way more than another arbitrary much larger group of people. Wyoming has a little more than 500,000 residents. That's a little more than the population of Fresno, California (the fifth largest city in California). How concerned should we be with protecting the interests and resources of the people of Fresno? I am sure that they have different values and interests than the people of (say) Los Angeles, or Vermont, or Houston. I am also sure that their interests get swamped by the votes and interests of millions more people both within California and within the United States at large. Is that a problem? If so, why? If that's not, why should we give priority to the interests of the same number of people who just happen to be scattered between some lines in the northwest?

You're boiling everything down to equal representation. That has never been our system. Our system is designed to protect the minority. In my opinion, you are flipping the problem. The issue is that the House is supposed to be the part of the government that provides equality among the people. By limiting the number of members and through gerrymandering and the out sized role the extremes play due to primaries, we've ended up with a House that doesn't represent the people, but only the loud people.

If the Senate were equally represented, what would be the point? The Senate is a different viewpoint. Senators have to look at things from a broader perspective. Each state gets a voice. That means when California wants to turn North Dakota into a buffalo reserve, the two North Dakota Senators can stop it. If California had 20x as many Senators or whatever the number is, there'd be a big strip of land doing nothing but feeding buffalo.

The House is meant to represent the people. The Senate to represent the states. The states should have a voice, it's needed in our large country to represent priorities that are not even understood by people living in places that are so divergent. I grew up in small town North Dakota. I've lived in a small city in Minnesota, Denver Colorado and now the DC metro. I can say without question each of these places is different. They have different needs and different wants. The state system is necessary and the Senate system is absolutely necessary. I don't want to see the rural areas get crushed by the metro areas. As it is now, the urban areas should have more representation. In the House. Fix that problem and then see what happens to the Senate.

You are missing my point. I was pointing out that we have managed to play too much into States Rights. And it has been a disaster for this country. That is why I was arguing that we probably should re-value "states rights" when we see the results we have.

To expand, this isn't limited to only the House since the system is not only the House. The President was elected due to our non-representational electoral college. The Senate created bizarre rules to deal with its non-representational nature. The Courts were not staffed in a normal process. True Everything is out of whack. All for "States rights" and "Limited Government".

State Rights were commandeered by racists. That doesn't make it a bad system. We are a huge country with a diverse population. You can't possible govern that from a central location without resorting to authoritarianism. Democracy does not prevent authoritarianism. It's just a different form. By allowing smaller areas to self-govern, we are able to maintain a unified Republic. Even when we disagree.

The ideal of State Rights is a simple exchange. A loss of efficiency in exchange for liberty. I get that it's hard to support that system when you perceive yourself in the majority, but it allows for people to express themselves and have a bigger say in their government. That some people are assholes is a reality of the system. The only way to suppress them, is to suppress non-assholes too.

[El Guapo]

I'm confused. My point is that giving disproportionate representation to the people of small population states *is* concerning ourselves with the taxes/natural resources/governance of an arbitrary group of people way more than another arbitrary much larger group of people. Wyoming has a little more than 500,000 residents. That's a little more than the population of Fresno, California (the fifth largest city in California). How concerned should we be with protecting the interests and resources of the people of Fresno? I am sure that they have different values and interests than the people of (say) Los Angeles, or Vermont, or Houston. I am also sure that their interests get swamped by the votes and interests of millions more people both within California and within the United States at large. Is that a problem? If so, why? If that's not, why should we give priority to the interests of the same number of people who just happen to be scattered between some lines in the northwest?

You're boiling everything down to equal representation. That has never been our system. Our system is designed to protect the minority. In my opinion, you are flipping the problem. The issue is that the House is supposed to be the part of the government that provides equality among the people. By limiting the number of members and through gerrymandering and the out sized role the extremes play due to primaries, we've ended up with a House that doesn't represent the people, but only the loud people.

If the Senate were equally represented, what would be the point? The Senate is a different viewpoint. Senators have to look at things from a broader perspective. Each state gets a voice. That means when California wants to turn North Dakota into a buffalo reserve, the two North Dakota Senators can stop it. If California had 20x as many Senators or whatever the number is, there'd be a big strip of land doing nothing but feeding buffalo.

The House is meant to represent the people. The Senate to represent the states. The states should have a voice, it's needed in our large country to represent priorities that are not even understood by people living in places that are so divergent. I grew up in small town North Dakota. I've lived in a small city in Minnesota, Denver Colorado and now the DC metro. I can say without question each of these places is different. They have different needs and different wants. The state system is necessary and the Senate system is absolutely necessary. I don't want to see the rural areas get crushed by the metro areas. As it is now, the urban areas should have more representation. In the House. Fix that problem and then see what happens to the Senate.

You are missing my point. I was pointing out that we have managed to play too much into States Rights. And it has been a disaster for this country. That is why I was arguing that we probably should re-value "states rights" when we see the results we have.

To expand, this isn't limited to only the House since the system is not only the House. The President was elected due to our non-representational electoral college. The Senate created bizarre rules to deal with its non-representational nature. The Courts were not staffed in a normal process. True Everything is out of whack. All for "States rights" and "Limited Government".

State Rights were commandeered by racists. That doesn't make it a bad system. We are a huge country with a diverse population. You can't possible govern that from a central location without resorting to authoritarianism. Democracy does not prevent authoritarianism. It's just a different form. By allowing smaller areas to self-govern, we are able to maintain a unified Republic. Even when we disagree.

The ideal of State Rights is a simple exchange. A loss of efficiency in exchange for liberty. I get that it's hard to support that system when you perceive yourself in the majority, but it allows for people to express themselves and have a bigger say in their government. That some people are assholes is a reality of the system. The only way to suppress them, is to suppress non-assholes too.

I get that the Senate was meant to represent the state governments. But that's not the system that we have anymore, due to popularly electing senators. It's another way in which we have a system that doesn't do what the founders intended, and yet doesn't really make sense under more modern norms either.

And again, disproportionate Senate representation for smaller / rural states is not the same thing as states rights, nor is it in conflict. It's totally viable to say that we do too much at the federal level and more should be devolved to state and local governments. That's not at all inconsistent with arguing that the citizens of Texas should get as much representation in Congress as the citizens of North Dakota.

Of course, this is all extra theoretical and not at all practical, since the Constitution not only sets the two senators per state, but also specifically says that a state can't be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without the consent of that state. So, good luck with that.

[Sepiche]

For the record, Drumpf has now expressed more anger about the fact it leaked that he was advised to not congratulate Putin on winning his "election" than about the Austin bomber or Putin using a weapon of mass destruction on the streets of a European city.

[LawBeefaroni]

For the record, Drumpf has now expressed more anger about the fact it leaked that he was advised to not congratulate Putin on winning his "election" than about the Austin bomber or Putin using a weapon of mass destruction on the streets of a European city.

His entire universe of understanding is limited to a 15 foot radius around his person.

Stuffs going on in Austin or London are of no note compared to his hurty feelings and a traitor in his office.

[malchior]

State Rights were commandeered by racists. That doesn't make it a bad system. We are a huge country with a diverse population. You can't possible govern that from a central location without resorting to authoritarianism. Democracy does not prevent authoritarianism. It's just a different form. By allowing smaller areas to self-govern, we are able to maintain a unified Republic. Even when we disagree.

I think you have the model all wrong. States Rights was commandeered by plutocrats. They were just craven enough to craft a message that relied on the support of racists. And the system is bad because it simply has not "scaled". "Minority" political populations are severely over represented in several power centers and those plutocrats have targeted those weaknesses in the system to maintain power. When not in power, they use those weaknesses to resist corrective change. And there is pretty much no way to get us to a place to even talk about fixing these things. It is pretty grim.

The ideal of State Rights is a simple exchange. A loss of efficiency in exchange for liberty. I get that it's hard to support that system when you perceive yourself in the majority, but it allows for people to express themselves and have a bigger say in their government. That some people are assholes is a reality of the system. The only way to suppress them, is to suppress non-assholes too.

This simply is not the case. There could be ways to respect States' Rights as El Guapo mentions. This system has no chance of accomplishing that and pretending that it is just the current cast causing problems is not accurate. This had been a fairly steady decline until Trump and now the bottom seems to be dropping out. We run a relatively real risk of authoritarianism *this year*. The risks this system was supposed to protect us against have been circumvented.

[Pyperkub]

I'm confused. My point is that giving disproportionate representation to the people of small population states *is* concerning ourselves with the taxes/natural resources/governance of an arbitrary group of people way more than another arbitrary much larger group of people. Wyoming has a little more than 500,000 residents. That's a little more than the population of Fresno, California (the fifth largest city in California). How concerned should we be with protecting the interests and resources of the people of Fresno? I am sure that they have different values and interests than the people of (say) Los Angeles, or Vermont, or Houston. I am also sure that their interests get swamped by the votes and interests of millions more people both within California and within the United States at large. Is that a problem? If so, why? If that's not, why should we give priority to the interests of the same number of people who just happen to be scattered between some lines in the northwest?

You're boiling everything down to equal representation. That has never been our system. Our system is designed to protect the minority. In my opinion, you are flipping the problem. The issue is that the House is supposed to be the part of the government that provides equality among the people. By limiting the number of members and through gerrymandering and the out sized role the extremes play due to primaries, we've ended up with a House that doesn't represent the people, but only the loud people.

If the Senate were equally represented, what would be the point? The Senate is a different viewpoint. Senators have to look at things from a broader perspective. Each state gets a voice. That means when California wants to turn North Dakota into a buffalo reserve, the two North Dakota Senators can stop it. If California had 20x as many Senators or whatever the number is, there'd be a big strip of land doing nothing but feeding buffalo.

The House is meant to represent the people. The Senate to represent the states. The states should have a voice, it's needed in our large country to represent priorities that are not even understood by people living in places that are so divergent. I grew up in small town North Dakota. I've lived in a small city in Minnesota, Denver Colorado and now the DC metro. I can say without question each of these places is different. They have different needs and different wants. The state system is necessary and the Senate system is absolutely necessary. I don't want to see the rural areas get crushed by the metro areas. As it is now, the urban areas should have more representation. In the House. Fix that problem and then see what happens to the Senate.

You are missing my point. I was pointing out that we have managed to play too much into States Rights. And it has been a disaster for this country. That is why I was arguing that we probably should re-value "states rights" when we see the results we have.

To expand, this isn't limited to only the House since the system is not only the House. The President was elected due to our non-representational electoral college. The Senate created bizarre rules to deal with its non-representational nature. The Courts were not staffed in a normal process. True Everything is out of whack. All for "States rights" and "Limited Government".

State Rights were commandeered by racists. That doesn't make it a bad system. We are a huge country with a diverse population. You can't possible govern that from a central location without resorting to authoritarianism. Democracy does not prevent authoritarianism. It's just a different form. By allowing smaller areas to self-govern, we are able to maintain a unified Republic. Even when we disagree.

The ideal of State Rights is a simple exchange. A loss of efficiency in exchange for liberty. I get that it's hard to support that system when you perceive yourself in the majority, but it allows for people to express themselves and have a bigger say in their government. That some people are assholes is a reality of the system. The only way to suppress them, is to suppress non-assholes too.

I get that the Senate was meant to represent the state governments. But that's not the system that we have anymore, due to popularly electing senators. It's another way in which we have a system that doesn't do what the founders intended, and yet doesn't really make sense under more modern norms either.

And again, disproportionate Senate representation for smaller / rural states is not the same thing as states rights, nor is it in conflict. It's totally viable to say that we do too much at the federal level and more should be devolved to state and local governments. That's not at all inconsistent with arguing that the citizens of Texas should get as much representation in Congress as the citizens of North Dakota.

Of course, this is all extra theoretical and not at all practical, since the Constitution not only sets the two senators per state, but also specifically says that a state can't be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without the consent of that state. So, good luck with that.

One of the core tenets of the US Government's design under the US Constitution is that of checks and balances. The Senate giving each state an equal say in matters (as opposed to the House weighting by population) is a check/balance between smaller states and larger states in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority. There are facets of rural life in the flyover states which have a lot of value (think small town values, which have their ups and downs, but can make for a better life), and shouldn't be run over by high population cities. Little Pink Houses for you and me.

However, this dichotomy has led to a lot of fracturing in the Union - to a large degree we fought a civil war over those differences, and we're still seeing it today in the Red State/Blue State dynamic.

But it isn't the Senate/House structure which is to blame, but the polarization of the electorate (and misinformation to gain political power).

[Holman]

RUSSIA IS SO GREAT YOU GUYS PUTIN LIKES ME YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!

I called President Putin of Russia to congratulate him on his election victory (in past, Obama called him also). The Fake News Media is crazed because they wanted me to excoriate him. They are wrong! Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good thing, not a bad thing.......

.....They can help solve problems with North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, ISIS, Iran and even the coming Arms Race. Bush tried to get along, but didn’t have the “smarts.” Obama and Clinton tried, but didn’t have the energy or chemistry (remember RESET). PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!

[LawBeefaroni]

Proper use of the word "excoriate", parenthetical asides, and ellipses between tweets? This means that someone took his phone away again, right?

[ImLawBoy]

He's done the ellipses for a while. Colbert loves to read them ("dot, dot, dot, dot") when he reads Trump's tweets. It is a suspiciously well composed (for him, anyway) couple of tweets, though.

[Holman]

Also, the second tweet only took 10 minutes this time.

[YellowKing]

For decades Presidents have balanced "getting along" with other nations without kissing their ass or condoning their bad behavior. Trump's caveman brain can only handle binary choices.

[$iljanus]

RUSSIA IS SO GREAT YOU GUYS PUTIN LIKES ME YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!

I called President Putin of Russia to congratulate him on his election victory (in past, Obama called him also). The Fake News Media is crazed because they wanted me to excoriate him. They are wrong! Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good thing, not a bad thing.......

.....They can help solve problems with North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, ISIS, Iran and even the coming Arms Race. Bush tried to get along, but didn’t have the “smarts.” Obama and Clinton tried, but didn’t have the energy or chemistry (remember RESET). PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!

AND NO COLLUSION!

[malchior]

One of the core tenets of the US Government's design under the US Constitution is that of checks and balances. The Senate giving each state an equal say in matters (as opposed to the House weighting by population) is a check/balance between smaller states and larger states in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority. There are facets of rural life in the flyover states which have a lot of value (think small town values, which have their ups and downs, but can make for a better life), and shouldn't be run over by high population cities. Little Pink Houses for you and me.

However, this dichotomy has led to a lot of fracturing in the Union - to a large degree we fought a civil war over those differences, and we're still seeing it today in the Red State/Blue State dynamic.

But it isn't the Senate/House structure which is to blame, but the polarization of the electorate (and misinformation to gain political power).

The Senate structure is definitely a problem. 44 Senators are controlled by ~11% of the population. 50 are controlled by ~15% of the population. As populations have moved into cities over the last 50 years we have concentrated political risk. I'm not saying that is all uniform but it does allow focus to exert outsized control over the United States congress. That seems to be a very big risk. One I think is playing out. Russia is definitely a problem but dark money and SuperPacs are a bigger problem. They can efficiently target money at small populations and get more control. And it is almost certainly what is happening. It is not a coincidence that policy outcomes of the plutocrats are being implemented no matter their support level in the population.

[Skinypupy]

Huh, I've never seen anyone actually give a blow job via Twitter before.

[El Guapo]

Wow. So, this is something:



Though at the same time I shudder because this could easily become a ready-made excuse to fire Sessions.

[Carpet_pissr]

"(in past, Obama called him also)"

Just unbelievably childish, this piece of shit. So the guy Trump has been railing against for YEARS, how bad, nasty, weak, etc. he is, and now he's comparing his actions to Obama's, as justification? Wow.

OBAMA SUCKS.
OBAMA IS FAKE NEWS
OBAMA IS NIGERIAN
OBAMA CAN'T KEEP PEOPLE IN HIS ADMINISTRATION

...ok, everyone calm down about me calling Putin, I mean, the great Obama did it, too! You liked him, right?! NOT FAIR! Why don't you like ME, TOO?!

[Enough]

Wow. So, this is something:



Though at the same time I shudder because this could easily become a ready-made excuse to fire Sessions.

So Sessions fired him after McCabe had authorized a criminal inquiry into Jeff Sessions? That's not a good look, right?

[Skinypupy]

There's always a tweet. Always.

[El Guapo]

Wow. So, this is something:



Though at the same time I shudder because this could easily become a ready-made excuse to fire Sessions.

So Sessions fired him after McCabe had authorized a criminal inquiry into Jeff Sessions? That's not a good look, right?

It was about a year ago, but apparently, yes. And semi-amusingly, since McCabe was officially fired for "lack of candor", it was an inquiry into whether Sessions had lied to the Senate about his Russia contacts. According to the article one source said that Sessions didn't know about the inquiry, for what that's worth.

[gilraen]

"Any negotiator who seduces himself into believing that his personality leads to automatic breakthroughs will soon find himself in the special purgatory that history reserves for those who measure themselves by acclaim rather than by achievement." - Henry Kissinger.
(reference stolen from Twitter)

[Fitzy]

State Rights were commandeered by racists. That doesn't make it a bad system. We are a huge country with a diverse population. You can't possible govern that from a central location without resorting to authoritarianism. Democracy does not prevent authoritarianism. It's just a different form. By allowing smaller areas to self-govern, we are able to maintain a unified Republic. Even when we disagree.

I think you have the model all wrong. States Rights was commandeered by plutocrats. They were just craven enough to craft a message that relied on the support of racists. And the system is bad because it simply has not "scaled". "Minority" political populations are severely over represented in several power centers and those plutocrats have targeted those weaknesses in the system to maintain power. When not in power, they use those weaknesses to resist corrective change. And there is pretty much no way to get us to a place to even talk about fixing these things. It is pretty grim.

The ideal of State Rights is a simple exchange. A loss of efficiency in exchange for liberty. I get that it's hard to support that system when you perceive yourself in the majority, but it allows for people to express themselves and have a bigger say in their government. That some people are assholes is a reality of the system. The only way to suppress them, is to suppress non-assholes too.

This simply is not the case. There could be ways to respect States' Rights as El Guapo mentions. This system has no chance of accomplishing that and pretending that it is just the current cast causing problems is not accurate. This had been a fairly steady decline until Trump and now the bottom seems to be dropping out. We run a relatively real risk of authoritarianism *this year*. The risks this system was supposed to protect us against have been circumvented.

If the Senate were turned to proportional representation, what would be the point of having two separate houses that are both proportional?

In what way are we facing authoritarianism now that we haven't faced every year?

The Senate exists as another check on the power of the federal government. Remove it and you are fast tracking rule by a single party far worse than exists now. And you and El Guapo claim that the little states can be protected and will be. Why? What check would the party controlling both proportional houses have?

The filibuster has been mocked as antiquated on this board.

The Courts will become nothing more than mouthpieces for the large states. Where are you getting the idea that the small states would in any manner be protected?

[Fitzy]

One of the core tenets of the US Government's design under the US Constitution is that of checks and balances. The Senate giving each state an equal say in matters (as opposed to the House weighting by population) is a check/balance between smaller states and larger states in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority. There are facets of rural life in the flyover states which have a lot of value (think small town values, which have their ups and downs, but can make for a better life), and shouldn't be run over by high population cities. Little Pink Houses for you and me.

However, this dichotomy has led to a lot of fracturing in the Union - to a large degree we fought a civil war over those differences, and we're still seeing it today in the Red State/Blue State dynamic.

But it isn't the Senate/House structure which is to blame, but the polarization of the electorate (and misinformation to gain political power).

Also this, better stated than I did.

Though I do still think the House should be bigger

[malchior]

If the Senate were turned to proportional representation, what would be the point of having two separate houses that are both proportional?

I didn't argue for this as a solution. Some mechanism that scales better would need to be found.

In what way are we facing authoritarianism now that we haven't faced every year?

Trump and Republican cowardice in Congress.

The Senate exists as another check on the power of the federal government. Remove it and you are fast tracking rule by a single party far worse than exists now. And you and El Guapo claim that the little states can be protected and will be. Why? What check would the party controlling both proportional houses have?

Again not what i argued. My argument was that the current structure of the Senate combined with Demographic changes have left our system susceptible to political inference and attack. There is a decent body of evidence to suggest this is true.

The filibuster has been mocked as antiquated on this board.

?

The Courts will become nothing more than mouthpieces for the large states. Where are you getting the idea that the small states would in any manner be protected?

Why would this happen?

Edit: As an aside I am always sort of confused why people have this notion that the country today is anything like the country the founder's governed. Those principles have not scaled. The results we are seeing are absurd at this point but we are supposed to cling to them? It is insanity.

[Holman]

From another thread. Love this graphic.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us ... population

The problem with a states-based political system is the presumption that states are natural and coherent political entities.

The first states were accidents of history and the later states were strategic political fictions of eras not our own.

[Fitzy]

The problem with a states-based political system is the presumption that states are natural and coherent political entities.

The first states were accidents of history and the later states were strategic political fictions of eras not our own.

If the states were equally populated, we wouldn't need a Senate or any of the other mechanisms by which equality is pushed for. Of course the states aren't "natural", and I've never seen anyone argue they were. They are the political reality we have. States Rights wasn't meant to be literally taken as the land is sacred. It was meant to be an association of people living within the same border. It's just an extension of the power of the people, except at a more local level.

I have more power in my city than I do my county and more power in my county than I do at the state and more power in my state than my country. If you want equality and justice you need each higher level to take only the powers they need and leave the rest to the lower level. That is all State's Rights is. A way to push for greater power by the people

It's not an excuse for discrimination, though it's been used as that. Which is why you need the system of checks and balances, the federal government to reign in rogue states, the states having equality in the Senate to ensure that some areas aren't overlooked. The courts that balance both. The Congress that balances the President. It's all an interplay of politics meant to ensure that every person has their rights protected. That states used it to discriminate and worse is a disgusting chapter of our history. It doesn't mean we should switch to a domineering Federal government.

If the Senate were turned to proportional representation, what would be the point of having two separate houses that are both proportional?

I didn't argue for this as a solution. Some mechanism that scales better would need to be found.

In what way are we facing authoritarianism now that we haven't faced every year?

Trump and Republican cowardice in Congress.

The Senate exists as another check on the power of the federal government. Remove it and you are fast tracking rule by a single party far worse than exists now. And you and El Guapo claim that the little states can be protected and will be. Why? What check would the party controlling both proportional houses have?

Again not what i argued. My argument was that the current structure of the Senate combined with Demographic changes have left our system susceptible to political inference and attack. There is a decent body of evidence to suggest this is true.

The filibuster has been mocked as antiquated on this board.

?

The Courts will become nothing more than mouthpieces for the large states. Where are you getting the idea that the small states would in any manner be protected?

Why would this happen?

Edit: As an aside I am always sort of confused why people have this notion that the country today is anything like the country the founder's governed. Those principles have not scaled. The results we are seeing are absurd at this point but we are supposed to cling to them? It is insanity.

What is a scaled system if not proportional?

What does susceptible to political interference mean? All governments are political, so I'm not sure how you'd have a government not susceptible to politics...

The principles in the Constitution have scaled. The majority of the people in this world live in systems where they could be arrested for half the stuff said on this forum, let alone in the rest of the media and out in the real world. Here are more free and more equal than we were at the founding. How is that not scaling? That we sometime take steps backward is flaw in humanity, not the laws of this country. That we aren't perfect is part of growing and changing that the Constitution allows.

And they obviously aren't sacred, given that there is a built in mechanism for changing them. One that has been used 27 times successfully. It's another of those checks and balances that it requires an overwhelming majority to make change. It protects the minority from a majority that wants to suppress it.

The results we are seeing come from a disinterested electorate that has been conned into believing we have a binary choice. Moving away from caucuses and to primaries opened up the system to more democracy, but left it vulnerable to extremists on either side. Same with moving from elected to appointed Senators. Interestingly enough, the two parties are no where to be seen in the Constitution. That is the part that has failed. The original design for Congress was and still is as a check to the power of the government. It cannot do that as successfully as it should when the two parties are more loyal to themselves than their branch of government. And it's worse at times like this when one of the parties is held hostage to their extreme.

As I see it, the complaints here are that the party most of you want in charge got screwed by the system. Though a better way to look at it, is that the Democrats got outplayed. Either way, I'd agree, but the solution isn't to throw away the system and create one better suited for the Democrats. The solution is to make minor changes to improve the system. End Gerrymandering. See where that leads. Reform the electoral college, see where that leads. But throwing out the system of checks and balances, putting the urban areas in power will only lead to an escalation.

[geezer]

As I see it, the complaints here are that the party most of you want in charge got screwed by the system. Though a better way to look at it, is that the Democrats got outplayed. Either way, I'd agree, but the solution isn't to throw away the system and create one better suited for the Democrats. The solution is to make minor changes to improve the system. End Gerrymandering. See where that leads. Reform the electoral college, see where that leads. But throwing out the system of checks and balances, putting the urban areas in power will only lead to an escalation.

This strikes me as a more sophisticated example of the warnings we keep hearing about how "dangerous" it is to simply call a racist a racist, and a deplorable, deplorable. And while I agree that that may lead to the alienation of a segment of people, lost in all the talk of why the Senate is the way it is to ensure sufficient representation of smaller states, is the fact that the Senate was *also* designed specifically to counter the will of the masses and ensure that those with a more tangible interest in the systems of government and law had a "backstop" against the whims of populism.

The "elitism" that a certain faction continually rails against these days isn't a perversion of some sort of egalitarian paradise that constructionists would has us believe was the foundation of our nation, but is instead a reflection of a deliberate feature designed to ensure that a populace with limited vision and information wasn't able to throw everything off the rails in a fit of pique. This is why, for example, while the two legislative branches are theoretically coequal in the creation of law, the Senate is the body that deals with affairs of state to a much greater degree. And if you read Madison's 1787 convention notes, and Hamilton and Madison's Federalist writings, it's also pretty clear that they saw the equal apportionment of Senators as a tragically necessary compromise, not a preferred option.

Hamilton wrote:

It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third.

So in short, I guess the point is that, while there's room for debate about the role that minuscule rural populations should have in hamstringing the majorities in urban centers, that debate isn't really grounded in the intent of the founders, though that would probably be dismissed as "fake news" by "patriots" who like to wrap themselves in the flag and claim a corner on the Constitution.

[Daehawk]

I hate this government and its lack of IQ or human caring. Its all greed and stupidity.

[Zarathud]

The problem is that if you try to amend the Constitution to address issues of representation, you open the doors to the venality and influence of modern politics. It isn't worth the risk. We might fix the popular vote but risk the union or institutionalize other problems.

There is something wrong -- tribalism, propaganda, dark money, and gerrymandering. An idiot President. Also economic decline in rural America. How about we solve the core problems?

[El Guapo]

State Rights were commandeered by racists. That doesn't make it a bad system. We are a huge country with a diverse population. You can't possible govern that from a central location without resorting to authoritarianism. Democracy does not prevent authoritarianism. It's just a different form. By allowing smaller areas to self-govern, we are able to maintain a unified Republic. Even when we disagree.

I think you have the model all wrong. States Rights was commandeered by plutocrats. They were just craven enough to craft a message that relied on the support of racists. And the system is bad because it simply has not "scaled". "Minority" political populations are severely over represented in several power centers and those plutocrats have targeted those weaknesses in the system to maintain power. When not in power, they use those weaknesses to resist corrective change. And there is pretty much no way to get us to a place to even talk about fixing these things. It is pretty grim.

The ideal of State Rights is a simple exchange. A loss of efficiency in exchange for liberty. I get that it's hard to support that system when you perceive yourself in the majority, but it allows for people to express themselves and have a bigger say in their government. That some people are assholes is a reality of the system. The only way to suppress them, is to suppress non-assholes too.

This simply is not the case. There could be ways to respect States' Rights as El Guapo mentions. This system has no chance of accomplishing that and pretending that it is just the current cast causing problems is not accurate. This had been a fairly steady decline until Trump and now the bottom seems to be dropping out. We run a relatively real risk of authoritarianism *this year*. The risks this system was supposed to protect us against have been circumvented.

If the Senate were turned to proportional representation, what would be the point of having two separate houses that are both proportional?

In what way are we facing authoritarianism now that we haven't faced every year?

The Senate exists as another check on the power of the federal government. Remove it and you are fast tracking rule by a single party far worse than exists now. And you and El Guapo claim that the little states can be protected and will be. Why? What check would the party controlling both proportional houses have?

The filibuster has been mocked as antiquated on this board.

The Courts will become nothing more than mouthpieces for the large states. Where are you getting the idea that the small states would in any manner be protected?

I'm not saying that little states will be protected. I'm saying that there's no real reason to give special protection or extra power to the people of Wyoming vs. the people of Fresno vs. the people of D.C. vs. any other group of 500,000ish people that one is inclined to draw lines around. And it doesn't facilitate local control, it just gives shifts power over the central government to different groups of voters.

I could be persuaded to support a unicameral legislature (which is I think more common in modern democracies). I do think there may be some value in having one chamber with longer terms, to give them more time to legislate vs. campaign. There's also value in the Senate being gerrymander-proof.

I'm not saying that disproportionate representation in the Senate is a major crisis or a major problem or anything. It just means that as a practical matter the U.S. system will produce policy outcomes that disproportionately favor the wishes of rural areas vs. the will of the majority of Americans overall. That's a little annoying, but not a huge deal, and as others have said it's not going to be practical to fix anyway unless we wind up with a new constitutional convention for other reasons

[El Guapo]

From another thread. Love this graphic.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us ... population

The problem with a states-based political system is the presumption that states are natural and coherent political entities.

The first states were accidents of history and the later states were strategic political fictions of eras not our own.

ugh, "Shasta"?

[Rip]

From another thread. Love this graphic.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us ... population

The problem with a states-based political system is the presumption that states are natural and coherent political entities.

The first states were accidents of history and the later states were strategic political fictions of eras not our own.

ugh, "Shasta"?

It should be Intelandia just south of Boeingford and north of Appletopia.

[malchior]

Crazy Joe Biden is trying to act like a tough guy. Actually, he is weak, both mentally and physically, and yet he threatens me, for the second time, with physical assault. He doesn’t know me, but he would go down fast and hard, crying all the way. Don’t threaten people Joe!