Fundraising for 2020/2021: Currently at $1580. Fundraising has begun, see the global post for options. Paypal Donation Links US dollars CDN Dollars

Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4640
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Fireball »

El Guapo wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:56 am
I'm more worried about the Senate, because its undemocratic structure is only going to get worse over time and because it's harder to fix, since the constitution doesn't allow equal representation by state to change without a state's consent (not even by amendment). There are patches to balance the Senate politically by admitting DC + PR, but I'm not sure what else could be done, unless we start divvying up states.
One thing that can be done easily is increasing the size of the House. Right now the "Senatorial" electoral votes represent 19% of the electoral college. If you expanded the House to 691 members, that would decline to less than 13%. That would reduce to a fairly significant degree the warping effect of the electoral college.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 26372
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by YellowKing »

malchior wrote:And I don't think we spend time swinging back and forth. I think we might have at one time but one side has a massive built-in advantage. And they may decide that they have to use it to retain power because they know long-term that they lose.
I agree that the GOP has built in advantages in terms of gerrymandering, packing courts, and generally playing unfair. But the other side still has the numbers. And the country itself generally tilts more progressive than conservative.

Part of me feels like if the majority can't check the minority, it's their own damn fault. In other words, why is 60% of the country allowing itself to be browbeaten by the 40%?

I see it over and over and over again. Throw up your hands, what can we do. Trump has all the power. The GOP is unstoppable. Fuck that. This clown got into office by losing the popular vote by 3 million and with help from his Russian buddies. He's barely stayed above 40% approval his entire term. If the GOP is so unstoppable, how did we have 8 years of Obama?

I'm not playing into the fear of the GOP. They aren't on the right side of history, nor are they on the right side of the polls.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:46 am
Holman wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:33 am
Just curious: how would a state divide itself? What's the legal process?

Could the Mississippi legislature decide that there are now 100 sub-Mississippis, each harder to spell than the last and each having two senators?
Not without consent of the other states.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Not all the other states - the "states concerned" (plus Congress). So, if Mississippi wants to divide itself, you need the consent of the MS legislature and of Congress. If you want to combine North and South Dakota, you need the consent of the ND legislature, the SD legislature, and Congress.

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 18800
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Unagi »

does 'consent' imply 100% ?

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4640
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Fireball »

Unagi wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:26 pm
does 'consent' imply 100% ?
No, consent means majority approval of both houses of Congress. We have never required unanimous consent for the admission of states.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by El Guapo »

Unagi wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:26 pm
does 'consent' imply 100% ?
:?:

Consent means approval.

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 63094
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by LordMortis »

YellowKing wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:51 am
Part of me feels like if the majority can't check the minority, it's their own damn fault. In other words, why is 60% of the country allowing itself to be browbeaten by the 40%?
Because of the nature of the Senate and Electoral college. 40% can easily dictate. It was supposed to be a protection but maybe somewhere around the age of Gingrich and Lott the cracks really started making themselves clear and we didn't respond accordingly.

That said, as you state later, the answer is not "throw up your hands, what can we do"

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 18800
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Unagi »

El Guapo wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:31 pm
Unagi wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:26 pm
does 'consent' imply 100% ?
:?:

Consent means approval.
I understand what the word means. :P

I just was curious if it was a majority, super-majority, or some '100%' deal (I wasn't seriously expecting it to be that).

I guess my point is that it seems almost too easy for Mississippi to split into 100 little Mississippites, should the (R)s hold a majority in both houses.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by El Guapo »

Unagi wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:36 pm
El Guapo wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:31 pm
Unagi wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:26 pm
does 'consent' imply 100% ?
:?:

Consent means approval.
I understand what the word means. :P

I just was curious if it was a majority, super-majority, or some '100%' deal (I wasn't seriously expecting it to be that).

I guess my point is that it seems almost too easy for Mississippi to split into 100 little Mississippites, should the (R)s hold a majority in both houses.
I mean, you did ask...

But no, consent means majority. Where the Constitution requires more than that (e.g., treaties) it says so.

But yeah, there are definitely games that can be played. Although there are some practical limitations - Mississippians probably wouldn't be thrilled to wake up and find that their small town is now a separate state and that they're not Mississippians anymore. And the practical governance problems that would come from essentially abolishing MIssissippi as a governing structure.

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:21 pm
malchior wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:46 am
Holman wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:33 am
Just curious: how would a state divide itself? What's the legal process?

Could the Mississippi legislature decide that there are now 100 sub-Mississippis, each harder to spell than the last and each having two senators?
Not without consent of the other states.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Not all the other states - the "states concerned" (plus Congress). So, if Mississippi wants to divide itself, you need the consent of the MS legislature and of Congress. If you want to combine North and South Dakota, you need the consent of the ND legislature, the SD legislature, and Congress.
Sorry wasn't clear - your explanation was clearer. I meant States via Congress. :)

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Little Raven »

The system was always designed with the idea that the government would be run by people more interested in the overall health of the country than playing partisan games. It's impossible to design a system that gives leaders the flexibility they need but also hamstrings them from ever doing anything bad. At some point, you have to trust the people involved. If you don't...don't elect them.

If the Democrats take both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, then sure, in theory, they can break San Francisco into 50 tiny states, pack the Court, and then use their new super-majority to amend the Constitution to make it illegal for anyone other than a Democrat to hold any government position in perpetuity. But that probably isn't a very good idea, and I don't think most Democrats would be on board for it. I certainly wouldn't be.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

Jeff V
Posts: 33096
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Jeff V »

Little Raven wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:01 pm
If the Democrats take both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, then sure, in theory, they can break San Francisco into 50 tiny states, pack the Court, and then use their new super-majority to amend the Constitution to make it illegal for anyone other than a Democrat to hold any government position in perpetuity. But that probably isn't a very good idea, and I don't think most Democrats would be on board for it. I certainly wouldn't be.
But you can't argue that after the last 20 years of behavior, the Republicans don't deserve it.

What they could do that would make a difference is abolish the party system altogether. Candidates must run solely on the viability of their platform. They would not serve a party agenda, and their effectiveness would be solely on their skill at horsetrading -- getting what their constituents want in return for supporting other measures. Extremists would be marginalized and very localized and likely not have much influence nationally. One outcome of this would be fewer, but more informed, voters. No longer would you have brainless drones pulling a lever for one party because their family has always done so.

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 18692
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Grifman »

Paingod wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:59 pm
I know life is full of contradictions and everyone manages them every day - I just don't see many atheists designing their entire lifestyles around them.
Sure they do, you just don't recognize it.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 18692
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Grifman »

Fireball wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:24 pm
I think that a lot of people in the media and in political circles have figured out that Twitter is always wrong about internal Democratic party battles.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Little Raven »

Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:48 pm
What they could do that would make a difference is abolish the party system altogether.
Washington tried. Couldn't find a way past the whole 1st Amendment thing. If people have the power to associate or not associate freely, then there's no mechanism to prevent a party from forming. And if you CAN form a party, then you HAVE to, because otherwise you're going to get steamrolled every time.

I can't see anyway to stop it without gutting the 1st Amendment, and as far as can tell, that "cure" is worse than the disease.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

Jeff V
Posts: 33096
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Jeff V »

Little Raven wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:11 pm
Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:48 pm
What they could do that would make a difference is abolish the party system altogether.
Washington tried. Couldn't find a way past the whole 1st Amendment thing. If people have the power to associate or not associate freely, then there's no mechanism to prevent a party from forming. And if you CAN form a party, then you HAVE to, because otherwise you're going to get steamrolled every time.

I can't see anyway to stop it without gutting the 1st Amendment, and as far as can tell, that "cure" is worse than the disease.
The premise, if you remember, is total dominance by the Democrats to do whatever they want, and that would include the ability to pass any constitutional amendment they see fit (or convene a Constitutional Convention to draft a new one, which, I think, is long overdue). In this scenario, there is no legal limitation. It is probably unrealistic to expect Democrats to be so altruistic, though...it would take a transcendent leader and that's not what we're getting with Biden.

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Little Raven »

Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:16 pm
The premise, if you remember, is total dominance by the Democrats to do whatever they want, and that would include the ability to pass any constitutional amendment they see fit (or convene a Constitutional Convention to draft a new one, which, I think, is long overdue).
I get that, which is why I said the cure is worse than the disease, not that it's impossible. Washington had the POWER to do exactly what you're suggesting...he just didn't see any way that didn't make things worse.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Holman »

Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:16 pm
Little Raven wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:11 pm
Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:48 pm
What they could do that would make a difference is abolish the party system altogether.
Washington tried. Couldn't find a way past the whole 1st Amendment thing. If people have the power to associate or not associate freely, then there's no mechanism to prevent a party from forming. And if you CAN form a party, then you HAVE to, because otherwise you're going to get steamrolled every time.

I can't see anyway to stop it without gutting the 1st Amendment, and as far as can tell, that "cure" is worse than the disease.
The premise, if you remember, is total dominance by the Democrats to do whatever they want, and that would include the ability to pass any constitutional amendment they see fit (or convene a Constitutional Convention to draft a new one, which, I think, is long overdue). In this scenario, there is no legal limitation. It is probably unrealistic to expect Democrats to be so altruistic, though...it would take a transcendent leader and that's not what we're getting with Biden.
As I understand it, in a new Constitutional Convention *everything* is on the table.

Republicans control more state governments (and thus delegates to the Convention) than Democrats, so the danger of some truly awful amendments getting passed is very real. As in, Christianity-as-national-religion kind of stuff.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Little Raven »

Holman wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:36 pm
Republicans control more state governments (and thus delegates to the Convention) than Democrats, so the danger of some truly awful amendments getting passed is very real.
But in the scenario Jeff and I were discussing, Democrats have have already rigged the game by adding a ton of Democratic micro-states (and packing the Supreme Court) before calling the convention, so they have complete control over everything.

Needless to say, our scenario is a tad fantastic.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

Jeff V
Posts: 33096
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Jeff V »

Little Raven wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:20 pm
Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:16 pm
The premise, if you remember, is total dominance by the Democrats to do whatever they want, and that would include the ability to pass any constitutional amendment they see fit (or convene a Constitutional Convention to draft a new one, which, I think, is long overdue).
I get that, which is why I said the cure is worse than the disease, not that it's impossible. Washington had the POWER to do exactly what you're suggesting...he just didn't see any way that didn't make things worse.
That's why I think we need another Constitutional Convention. 2020 is not 1787, and what made sense back then needs to be "interpreted" to make sense now. Treating it like a sacred document is what brought us to a current state where much of it doesn't directly apply (much like religious texts of millennia past). The existential threats back then are not threats now. Equality of women and minorities was unthinkable then, has not been fully address through amendments, and really needs to be put in stone. Parameters of the executive, legislative and judicial branches need better definition so that one cannot forcibly influence the other (why, for example, aren't the people allowed to vote for supreme court justices? It should not be a perk of the party-in-most-control at the time). The vice-president should not be a tie-breaking vote in the senate...perhaps DC could be granted a single senator to serve this purpose.

Delegates to a new constitutional convention should not be politicians with long-term careers to consider. Each state and territory should be able elect someone who's sole obligation is representing the interests of their constituents for a one-time event. It could even be akin to the intent of the electoral college where voters decide yea or nay on the proposed new constitution.

I have an undying respect for what Washington, Jefferson, and the rest of the "founding fathers" had to do and what they accomplished. But time has rendered them a historical footnote. I would go even further and suggest a constitutional convention be convened at least once every 20 years. Remember, it's not necessary that the baby be thrown out with the bathwater every time, just get rid of the leeches that appear time to time.

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Little Raven »

Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:56 pm
That's why I think we need another Constitutional Convention.
I don't know that we need to go THAT far, but I do agree that we've allowed our Constitution to get a little stagnant. The Founding Fathers intended us to modify it. And until the last 50 years, we did so with some frequency. Then we seemingly lost the ability to create cultural consensus on much of anything. :( (although, looking at the history of Amendments, it would be more accurate to say that you generally see a long period of time (50-70 years) where the Constitution isn't amended at all, followed by several Amendments coming very rapidly. So maybe we're just drawing close to the end of one of those spells. Kind of feels like it.)

But I'm honestly at a loss for how you COULD amend or redraw the Constitution in such a way as to prevent political parties. The only way to do that is to allow the government to control who is allowed to assemble and for what purpose, and if we give the government that power, it's only a matter of time until the bad guys get their hands on it.
Equality of women and minorities was unthinkable then, has not been fully address through amendments, and really needs to be put in stone.
For the record, they ARE set in stone, as much as is possible. An Amendment is no less binding than any other part of the Constitution. Legislatively, women and minorities are about as protected as they can be. But how much that protection extends into the real world is always questionable. Laws are just lines on paper, after all.
why, for example, aren't the people allowed to vote for supreme court justices?
Because that would be amazingly stupid. The last thing we need is Kim Kardashian on the Court because she thought it would boost her Instagram follower numbers. The Judicial system is the ONE branch of our government that is actually doing what it is supposed to do at the moment. There's no need to mess with it.
I would go even further and suggest a constitutional convention be convened at least once every 20 years.
I'm not sure dissolving the country every 20 years is really compatible with having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a couple of times over. We have too much responsibility now to make such a thing feasible even if we truly desired it.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

Jeff V
Posts: 33096
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Jeff V »

Not dissolving the country every 20 years...just updating to reflect the current state of affairs. Doing so by amendment is neither timely nor effective. A constitutional convention would allow for more timely changes and keep it current as to the will of the people.

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Little Raven »

Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:32 pm
Not dissolving the country every 20 years...just updating to reflect the current state of affairs.
But that's literally what the Amendment process is for. Do you like most of what's in the Constitution but feel it needs a bit of a tune-up? Amend it. Do you want to scrap EVERYTHING and start over from scratch? That's a Constitutional Convention. There's a reason we've only ever done one of them...it's very, VERY extreme. There are no guarantees about what comes out on the other side.

Moreover...to me, Constitutions exist to give a base-line template of values. The rules of human societies are FAR to complex to ever capture in a single document...we require massive bookcases full of laws to do that, and even THEN, we need judges to tweak things on the fly. A Constitution should cover only the most bedrock of convictions - it's not a place for details. And your bedrock convictions really shouldn't change THAT often.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

Jeff V
Posts: 33096
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Jeff V »

We couldn't even pass an equal rights amendment stating that women are the absolute equivalent of men The alone is an indication that the current system is FUBAR.

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Little Raven »

Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:01 pm
We couldn't even pass an equal rights amendment stating that women are the absolute equivalent of men The alone is an indication that the current system is FUBAR.
We all know why that failed. Phyllis Schlafly successfully mobilized conservative women against it. That's the problem with Democracy....even the idiots get to vote. But there's no getting around it. Anyway, a Convention doesn't help with that problem at all. It just means the idiots can rewrite everything at once.

There have been lots of attempts at cutting idiots out of the governing process. Results are....mixed.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 36487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Kraken »

Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7394
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Little Raven »

Kraken wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:34 pm
Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds.
I don't think that's entirely fair - I'd put Obama up against virtually anyone in our history and I suspect he would easily hold his ground. And you are definitely failing to account for Sturgeon's law, which applies to politicians as well as everything else. We remember the greats - the Lincolns, the Washingtons, the FDRs....but the truth is our government has always been full of lackeys and incompetents. We muddle through regardless.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33302
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Remus West »

Little Raven wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Kraken wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:34 pm
Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds.
I don't think that's entirely fair - I'd put Obama up against virtually anyone in our history and I suspect he would easily hold his ground. And you are definitely failing to account for Sturgeon's law, which applies to politicians as well as everything else. We remember the greats - the Lincolns, the Washingtons, the FDRs....but the truth is our government has always been full of lackeys and incompetents. We muddle through regardless.
Clinton was also brilliant imo. He simply had/has some big flaws. Much like the founders did. While Carter was not a good active President I would have him in his prime at a convention due to having the strongest sense of morality and compassion of any of them.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by malchior »

I think complexity of the modern world is definitely a major factor. Modern politicians like most people develop areas of deeper knowledge but are often completely ignorant of entire domains. This isn't a problem when you allow experts to inform you and have the capacity to distill out key issues to make a decision like an Obama did. And it's a major problem if the President is a shit goblin who thinks he knows every topic perfectly because he is too insecure about the truth of his very limited intellect and unable to comprehend the bottomless black hole that is his moral and ethical capacity.

The founding fathers in contrast lived in a simpler world, were generally idle wealthy or academics. They had the time to further their educations either themselves or by engaging with the top minds of their time, had norms that enabled open debate, and dedicated time to the political arts and science in general. Information overload was barely even a concept when the nation was founded. They had less overhead to deal with and could focus on the essentials.

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4640
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Fireball »

Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:16 pm
Little Raven wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:11 pm
Jeff V wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:48 pm
What they could do that would make a difference is abolish the party system altogether.
Washington tried. Couldn't find a way past the whole 1st Amendment thing. If people have the power to associate or not associate freely, then there's no mechanism to prevent a party from forming. And if you CAN form a party, then you HAVE to, because otherwise you're going to get steamrolled every time.

I can't see anyway to stop it without gutting the 1st Amendment, and as far as can tell, that "cure" is worse than the disease.
The premise, if you remember, is total dominance by the Democrats to do whatever they want, and that would include the ability to pass any constitutional amendment they see fit (or convene a Constitutional Convention to draft a new one, which, I think, is long overdue). In this scenario, there is no legal limitation. It is probably unrealistic to expect Democrats to be so altruistic, though...it would take a transcendent leader and that's not what we're getting with Biden.
Under no scenario will either party have the votes needed to amend the Constitution in the foreseeable future.

Also, political parties are naturally occurring. You can try to prevent them but they will form no matter what. Even in cities with nonpartisan elections effective parties form.

Also, political parties are a good thing. They help channel policy ideas into broad coalitions that can enact laws. The problem in the United States is that our parties are very weak. Donald Trump could never have taken over an established European political party. Stronger parties, and perhaps separate state-level parties, and a return of authority to the Congress, where a more-than-two party system is possible, are better, and actually legal, goals than the elimination of parties.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by El Guapo »

Devastating news for the Biden campaign as he picks up a significant Republican endorsement.

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4640
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Fireball »

Kraken wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:34 pm
Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.
Anyone who would be part of a Constitutional Convention would be by definition a politician, as it is a political office. I would prefer to have only political scientists involved in such an endeavor, but that would make them politicians. Non-experts should not be involved with designing governing institutions.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 18692
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Grifman »

El Guapo wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:56 pm
Devastating news for the Biden campaign as he picks up a significant Republican endorsement.
Here's another one:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5083 ... for-biden
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Alefroth »

Grifman wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:25 am
El Guapo wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:56 pm
Devastating news for the Biden campaign as he picks up a significant Republican endorsement.
Here's another one:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5083 ... for-biden
"Have you voted for a Democrat before?" she continued.

"Never," Will said, adding, "I've nothing against Democrats. But I've never had the opportunity to vote for one."
He knows how elections work, doesn't he?

User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Paingod »

Grifman wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:06 pm
Paingod wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:59 pm
I know life is full of contradictions and everyone manages them every day - I just don't see many atheists designing their entire lifestyles around them.
Sure they do, you just don't recognize it.
Can you cite examples? I mean, real world "big" things that would differentiate an atheist from anyone else in terms of lifestyle that requires us to have logical inconsistencies as a group? Not just things on an individual level that might apply to anyone, religious or not.
More than ever, now is the time to stand by the causes you believe in; donate and support to keep America great.
Reproductive Rights, Environmental Defense, Civil Liberties, LGBTQ Awareness, Immigration Rights
Currently playing: Lotsa' Switch - Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Fire Emblem: Three Houses

Jeff V
Posts: 33096
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Jeff V »

Fireball wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:56 pm
Under no scenario will either party have the votes needed to amend the Constitution in the foreseeable future.
You're not following the premise of this exercise, are you? The premise was San Francisco gets divided up into 50 microstates, each entitled to two senators. That would give one party the power to do anything they want.

User avatar
Scraper
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:59 pm

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Scraper »

Image
FTE

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Holman »

Kraken wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:34 pm
Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.
Did Lin-Manuel Miranda teach you nothing??

:wink:
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33302
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by Remus West »

Paingod wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:53 am
Grifman wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:06 pm
Paingod wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:59 pm
I know life is full of contradictions and everyone manages them every day - I just don't see many atheists designing their entire lifestyles around them.
Sure they do, you just don't recognize it.
Can you cite examples? I mean, real world "big" things that would differentiate an atheist from anyone else in terms of lifestyle that requires us to have logical inconsistencies as a group? Not just things on an individual level that might apply to anyone, religious or not.
While I agree for the most part, we could be the ones making a huge error if there really is a god. Sometimes if everyone else is acting crazy then you are the crazy one. Seems to me there are a LOT of people acting crazy right now. I'm worried about me. :lol:
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

Post by El Guapo »

Kraken wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:34 pm
Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.
I hate to break it to you, but Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton were all politicians.

Post Reply