Random Politics & Arguments Over Nothing #16

My favorite Twilight Zone episode and I don't care what anyone says.

01001001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100100 01110101 01100100 00101110

California does have two very distinct areas where a political divide could occur that everyone (but Sacramento, sucks to be you!) could like. Just call it North California and Sucky South California.

But regardless of that idea, I'm actually partial for the Maine structure, where each region has an Electorial Vote, and the overall winner for the state has half of the votes (could break it up in Texas that each region has X number of votes that's divided by winning %, and still do a winner-take-all where the winner takes half+ of the votes. Could even prevent gerrymandering by keeping the regions locked).

If the entire country works that way, then that would give a more accurate feel of how the country wants to be ran. Meaning California could still give out 30 EC to the Republicans, even though most of the votes come from the cities.

Just a thought.

*cracks out the english to binary translator*

01011001 01100101 01110011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00101100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100100 01110101 01100100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100101 01101110 01101010 01101111 01111001 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100001

Speaking of translating how bout some french.


Vos gros mamelons font chanter mon âme.

Le personnel de modération ici aime à sentir comme des baies de sureau

You and I are actually talking the same language here. Adoption of Maine's system was a highly favored alternative, despite political ideology, at a Christmas party this weekend. The more logistically questionable one was expanding the EC, nixing senate say, for individual counties while opening all states to the same value.

It would encourage more participation.

Half the reason you don't see more red voters in CA is because why bother.

Problem is it's only going to really turn blue states into purple ones, BUT libs are on the ropes and have lost control of all but 5 states these days.

It would be hard to do, because demographics change all the time.

I'm not talking about red vs. blue, I'm talking about population.

If it's not done right, it will lead right back to gerrymandering.

It will still be in the control of the individual states, since we are always stuck with that 538.

For now.

Remember, it wasn't that long ago when the Republicans were on the short-end of the stick.

The Overall winner doesn't have half the votes in Maine, that's just how the numbers work because there are only two congressional districts. What happens is the winner in each district gets that district's vote while the popular vote winner gets the two senate seat votes. This is the way the system was supposed to work until one state passed a law that says all it's votes have to go to the popular winner. Then many other stats followed suite and thus we get the mostly winner-take-all system. If Maine's population was to be increased then we'd get more districts and the Senate vote would be less then half.


No we aren't stuck at that number, it's a result of the populations of those states and is subject to growth based on the US census and laws passed by Congress. Currently it's 435 limit was determined back in 1913 and is approximately one representative for every ~200,000 people. Congress can choose to expand the total number of seats and those seats would then be determined by state size.

I meant that we are stuck by the number of seats in the House, Senate, and whatever makes up the 3 votes above those two totals.

The total number may change in the years, but it's still a distribution of the Congress seats.

When you think about it, Trump is just a natural extension of this. Population gets sick of the ***from one side of things, shifts to the other side, gets sick of both sides, says "*** you, we'll try this guy instead. Can't be any worse!"

Now, I don't necessarily agree on that last part.

But I see the line of reason.

Hegelian/Marxist thought of the day:

Every time we come full circle on this journey of dialectical materialism; we reach a point of "what's the worst that can happen?". The worst thing happens; every time.

This basically describes FFXI and FFXIAH it can't possibly get worse...three months later...three posts later !

Hey. At least LG still isn't back, and FFXI isn't stuck in the rut of WOTG endgame.

Give it time.....

What more evidence do you need that the country is "trump-land". Have you seen the Clinton archipelago?



This is where Hillary got more than 50% of he vote. Neo-liberalism really only makes sense in a very small portion of the country.

You cannot point to the election of Obama as some evidence that everyone is a hardcore liberal. That's the delusion liberals have convinced themselves of. It's why we're seeing everything but the message (aka Clinton herself) be blamed for the failure of 2016.

Well... no. That isn't the way the system was supposed to work at all.

Electors were apointed by several different, state specific, systems. The states' popular votes weren't taken into account at all by the individual systems in the various states. While the elector's votes usually reflected the will of the voters in their states there was no requirement for them to do so at all. And therefore sometimes they didn't.

Have you forgotten the horrific losses the Republicans had from 2006 to 2008, that lead up to the election (and supermajority) of Obama and the democrats/liberals?

Yes, Republicans have the most power in federal, state, and local levels today than they had since the Great Depression, but that doesn't mean that they will keep that power.

Because we all know that some Republican will *** it up for everyone. Like how Bush's administration did for 2005, and the perceived notion of today's liberal that all Republicans are the super-devil.

That's why I'm never going to take this huge victory for granted, and will expect some democrat/liberal gains in 2018.

What Savael is stating is what is happening, not what is written as law.

Yeah but you think trump is gonna roll over and just let the media skewer him for 8 years without fighting back?

Bush did. That's why he lost power. Trump didn't need the media to get out his message before the election and he won't after it. In fact he'll be able to get his message out in a broader reach now than before he was elected.

All he has to do is start bringing prosperity to the inner cities and the last "blue wall" (as well as the dems) is finished.

Welcome to the FFXIAH Christmas party: Merry Christmas and you're a racist scumbag, I mean Happy Holidays ! Well then no rum fruit cake for you Johnny !

It's important to note I use this phrase only when I actually do it IRL:


LOL.

What exactly is funny about that? If you're laughing specifically at Trump then you're ignoring decades of failed policies. If you're laughing at it because the typical politicians on both sides have failed miserably in that endeavor with no hope in sight... well, then that makes sense.

Though to be honest, Nausi inadvertently raises a good question.

Can Trump maintain his rural support if he doesn't actually do anything to help their situation?

Because I don't see a damn thing he's talked about stopping the death of rural America, and that's a large part of who elected him. People in my neck o' the woods.

Lol back at you.

Remy, failed liberal policies have done cities like Detroit, Baltimore, philly, Chicago injustice. I don't think you realize what the impact of bringing jobs and investments back into the states will have on the mentality of all those inner city dems.

I mean aside from all the dead and illegal ones anyways.

The latter. I'm not specifically laughing at Nausi. He's not inherently wrong.

I'm laughing at the fact that it's a multi-faceted problem that I'm not sure anyone is prepared to truly handle, or that anyone in Washington even has a good idea of where to begin let alone actually enact anything to make it happen.

We've actually discussed this before around these parts, albeit a long time ago. The state of inner cities is layer upon layers of failed policies and planning from every direction on the political compass. Even if Trump had the perfect plan, and even if we assume he wins a second term (big if, though not impossible) I don't think there's enough time for it to happen, and there's zero chance of any plan being carried out long-term if anyone other than a Trump disciple gets elected following his questionable second term.

No, but as the months/years go by, his overall effectiveness of dismissing the media will be diminished.

Barring some catastrophic event like 9/11, I seriously doubt that Trump will be reelected in 2020. I am a firm believer that Bush was reelected in 2004 because of the Iraq War and 9/11.

You do realize that it is almost impossible to do that without redefining the working structure of America.

Hell, the federal government is powerful, but not omniscient. Nobody has that sort of power anymore. There will not be a Industrial Revolution II: Electric Boogaloo.

Yeah, sorry. I tried to clarify in my follow-up. I'm truly not laughing at you directly. The entire situation, however, is as such that I have a very hard time seeing it happening without a true revolution.

The violent kind. With lots and lots of government-forced things that are actually more indicative of communist regimes than anything else.