patrick.net

First Female Campaign Manager to win an election.

turtledove says

The only problem with that is who would believe he still uses a dot-matrix printer?

Maybe it's the only movie set they had available. Last used in Murphy Brown.

turtledove says

We believe he meant illegal immigrants. Now, if he were to start rounding up immigrants of all kinds, I assure you, most of us are not in support of that.

When I lived in San Diego, it wasn't unusual to see border control vans rounding up illegals, even chasing them down in Del Mar.

errc says

He won the presidency while being outspent by his opponent (by an order of magnitude). When was the last time the top spender didn't win the election?

This. More media hamstering: This is a YUGE fucking deal. He was outspent 300% in some categories.

errc says

Trump broke through a glass ceiling.

He won the presidency while being outspent by his opponent (by an order of magnitude). When was the last time the top spender didn't win the election?

No wonder the media hates him. Trump is the existential threat to the mainstream media.

I doubt authoritative media has a future at all. People want personalized narratives, a reality distortion field to protect their safe space.

The media is in a safe space. The few rare times a year they interact with a normal, non-Georgetown Graduate, non-Sushi eating American, it's to bitch about why there isn't an iron in their hotel room.

I also notice that Trump, Trump Surrogates, and Trump Voters were openly nasty and aggressive to the Media in turn this time, instead of trying to kiss their ass and convince them to be fair.

Touchdown Jesus, but Twitter Jesus

Dan8267 says

That does not imply that on the national level that one side should have more representation than the other.

Another correct statement. The idea is that people in all states would have as close to EQUAL representation, just like each state has two senators. But the system is imperfect.

Here is an example in the other direction where it would produce a very inequitable result.

Let's say Candidate A wins just the 13 states below and by a margin of 50%-49% against Candidate B
Perhaps the candidate is promising something important to states that border waterways
California 55 votes
NY 29
Texas 38
FLA 29
PA 20
Ohio 18
Mi 16
VA 13
ILL 20
IND 11
WI 10
MN 10
DE 3
272 Electoral Votes

Let's say candidate B wins in a blow out in the remaining states 60%-40%.

In this case Candidate B would have far more popular votes and would carry 37 states (75% of the states!) by a wide margin BUT Candidate A would win the Electoral College

When I lived in San Diego, it wasn't unusual to see border control vans rounding up illegals, even chasing them down in Del Mar.
================

Now I go through that border crossing at OC border every day of the work week. For those of you who don't know, here's how it works. There's this border security station that spans the 5 right at the border between San Diego and Orange counties. Several times a day, the Northbound lanes are closed. Marshalls stand at each lane. We drive through when they wave us across row by row. Without going off on a tangent, I will just say that I find this really inconvenient on some days as it adds 15 minutes to the trip, but I digress.

Here's my question... What are they looking for? Everyone going through there is in a car. Surely, they aren't pulling over people because they look like they could be from Mexico. How do they know who to pullover? Often times, there are people who are pulled over... their cars being searched. What's the criteria for that? Would they pull me over for wearing a sombrero?

I'm just curious if anyone knows. Since I'm only ever in traffic when I'm being waived through, it never seemed like the right time to ask.

smaulgld says

The electoral college is not a gerrymandering mechanism and not designed to disenfranchise voters, but rather to enfranchise them. Its the same concept behind giving each state 2 senators no matter its population. It is an anti-mobocracy provision.

States are not people. People are people. And granting the same number of senators and voting power to a state with ten thousand people as one does to a state with ten million people does nothing to prevent mob rule. In fact, it makes mob rule easier because a smaller mob can form more easily than a large one.

If people really believed in the rights of the disenfranchised, then no one would be for states rights or the electoral college. Instead, they would be for the rights of individuals over the state and federal governments and for Constitutional reforms to implement representational voting power in Congress instead of winner-take-all elections. Under representational voting, all voices, even fringe minorities, would have some say. Under winner-take-all elections, including state elections, minorities are truly disenfranchised. Try being a liberal in Texas. The entire city of Austin is disenfranchised.

Here's some more stuff that will make your stomach turn.
www.youtube.com/embed/rHFOwlMCdto

smaulgld says

The idea is that people in all states would have as close to EQUAL representation, just like each state has two senators. But the system is imperfect.

The system is more than imperfect. It's based on a fundamental flaw. Giving states controls of votes doesn't empower people. It does the exact opposite. By forcing my vote to be the same as my neighbors, you have in fact silenced my vote, the very minority vote you claim to be trying to protect. The electoral college is like trying to end all rape by making consent assumed by default so that if I guy fucks a girl he found passed out at a party then it's not rape. Sure you can redefine a problem so that it's solved, but that's not a real solution. In fact it's highly counter-productive.

And what if CA decides it wants to split up into fifty different smaller states? Should it then get 100 senators? We could easily gerrymander the system so that 1% of the population has 51% of the votes. I suspect those in favor of small population states would find this highly objectionable.

Dan8267 says

Giving states controls of votes doesn't empower people. It does the exact opposite.

"Sure you can redefine a problem so that it's solved, but that's not a real solution."

Yes that is evident in the example I gave with the 13 states determining the presidency

Voting by definition forces the will of one group upon the other, changing how you count it wont change that

Dan8267 says

Try being a liberal in Texas. The entire city of Austin is disenfranchised.

another great example.
This argues for more political power at the local level and a President that has far less that he has today.

if there was more local control there would still be division. You would have disenfranchised people in nearly all towns BUT you would not have 58 million people disenfranchised over the same issue!

smaulgld says

Voting by definition forces the will of one group upon the other, changing how you count it wont change that

True, but what it will do, and is supposed to do, is to maximize the satisfaction of the overall population. That's the entire idea behind both democracies and republics. If you don't believe that idea is a good one, then you should get rid of voting altogether. If you accept the premise of democracies and republics, then it is clear that the best way to fulfill that premise is to use rules that mathematically represent the population as accurately as possible. This is a purely objective, mathematical problem with definite and provable solutions.

smaulgld says

This argues for more political power at the local level and a President that has far less that he has today.

(Note: "You" is the ephemeral, general, hypothetical you, not anyone in particular.)

If you move all voting power to the most local level possible, the individual, then
1. In a democracy, every citizen casts a single vote and all votes are weighed equally regardless of any conditions including geography.
2. In a republic like the U.S., the voting power of every representative is proportional to the number of citizens that representative represents. In this case, the electoral college cannot exist. Nor can giving a small set of voters the same number of senators and the same voting power for those senators as a large set of voters.

Even if you don't move voting power to the most local level possible, it makes no sense to adjust voting power based on some arbitrary condition like geography. One could make more compelling reasons to group people by race, religion, rationality, education, profession, etc. By forcing the voting power to be adjusted to one particular arbitrary grouping, you are actually suppressing all other possible groupings of people as well as individuals who most certainly will identify more with "being a Jew" than "living in a rural county". Mathematically, it still makes no sense.

turtledove says

I'm just curious if anyone knows. Since I'm only ever in traffic when I'm being waived through, it never seemed like the right time to ask.

My guess....they pull people over at random, and on any tips they may have received.

The really big, and dividing, issues cannot be localized. You can't localize abortion. If you localize to the state level, you still suppressing people and those people will cross state lines to get an abortion. If you localize it to the city level, the same thing happens, but more so. If you localize abortion to the level of the individual, then it in effect becomes completely free. The entire pro-life side is utterly reliant on forcing their will onto other people who reject their beliefs.

At the same time, the pro-life side is entirely reliant on their will to protect the choice of the mother being forced onto those who interfere with that choice by any means. This means not allowing local governments to deceptively subvert federal protections on abortions by implementing bullshit laws about corridor widths. When such local government pass such laws, they are clearly not trying to protect a minority within their community or even the will of the people as a whole. They are forcing the will of the few people in power onto the many in their geopolitical borders.

If anything, it makes no sense to do at the local level most of the things currently done at the local level. Why should traffic laws vary at all from state to state? Drivers can and do drive between states and being familiar with the laws is essential to being able to comply with them. It would make no sense for a state to decide to drive on the left side of the road. Nor do other variations matter. Parameterization can still be used, for example, to set speed limits.

Strategist says

My guess....they pull people over at random, and on any tips they may have received.

If you are wearing a sombrero, and questioning the need for badges, you probably get pulled over. Likewise if you have an I'm With Her decal or bumper sticker.

Blurtman says

Many friends and relatives who were pro-Hillary were country club liberal

Yeah liberals who fight for education but don't want the disadvantaged, usually colored people in their kids schools

While we're engaging in hearsay and poisoning the well, can anyone tell me why all my conservative friends fuck their own sisters?

Anyone else notice the Dow closed at a record high today less than 48hrs after all the hysteria of the worldwide markets being in free fall

oh man lol

America Great Again

Dan8267 says

federal protections

the concept of local control UNLESS it subverts the constitution (ROE vs Wade) would act as a protection in your example.

turtledove says

The media decided that Trump was going to round up immigrants and refuse them entry into this country (though I don't know how they twisted his words into that). Nevertheless, we don't believe that to be what he meant. We believe he meant illegal immigrants. Now, if he were to start rounding up immigrants of all kinds, I assure you, most of us are not in support of that.

What? Who thought he meant all immigrants? You're all immigrants in one way or another. It was obvious he was talking about illegal immigrants - the media didn't misrepresent that.

turtledove says

The media decided that Trump's concern over refugees from terror-prone countries means that he's going to ban Muslims. We believe he wants to strengthen the vetting process. But, I promise, if he starts banning religions in this country, most of us won't be in support of that. Even those of us who aren't religious because we recognize that each person has the right to choose and exercise his/her beliefs as long as those beliefs aren't contrary to our laws.

Now that is funny. For a good chunk of his more fervent supporters that was one of his more popular plans as evidenced by the rabid anti-Muslim comments posted on here.

turtledove says

The media decided that Trump's locker room talk means that he's going to pussy grab women as they walk by. If he starts doing that, we wouldn't support it. Right after we stop laughing in incredulity, we'd fight right alongside you to stop gratuitous pussy grabbing.

For the President of the United States, his comments were pathetic. You can brush them off any way you like, but it's disappointing that you find it so easy to do so. For me his little 'impersonation' of the disabled journalist was one of the more despicable things he did as my mother recently died from the crippling disability she had to suffer for half her life, and for someone in his position to think such a playground act was appropriate speaks volumes for the type of individual you and his supporters just elected.

turtledove says

Repealing Obamacare. Well yes, we support that one. But most of us recognize that he cannot just jerk the rug out from under it. ACA took years to implement, just hitting the "delete" button would cause tremendous pain. So we agree that ACA was a bad bill... But we recognize that he must have something to replace it with and a well thought out transition plan for achieving that. If he jerks the rug out suddenly from ACA, most of us would not support that and would fight with you for something better.

I rather think you'll be in for a shock in that case, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

turtledove says

Cancelling trade agreements. We think we got shafted. Like Obamacare, he cannot just throw the agreements in the shredder and call it a day without causing a tremendous backlash in our economy. Most of us recognize that it would be better to re-negotiate the trade agreements... and that it will take time unless we want to shock the system (hardly ever turns out well). Should he just shred the agreements and launch our economy into some serious turmoil, many of us would be pretty pissed off right there with you.

Most of you? Really? Based on what? Shredding those agreements seemed to be central to his appeal. You can see it from all the pie in the sky anti-globalist (whatever they think that means) comments you see littering the internet.

Quigley is deplorable says

Rashomon says

And if the shoe had been on the other foot...

We have a Constitution and it shouldn't be changed for any except the most compelling and urgent reasons, certainly not because some special snowflakes feel butt hurt.

I didn't say it should be. It was Donald and his followers throwing out the anti-constitutional comments pre-election, or have you so quickly forgotten the little quips he kept making?

So what's the answer Rashomon? What would make you happy? Absolute proof of future events? A time machine, perhaps? I'll work on that for you.

Rather than attempting to find common ground... you respond with meaningless, almost ridiculing one-liners... Okay fine. You're perfect and everyone else is an idiot. Feel better? If there's anything further I can do for you, please do not hesitate to ask.

turtledove says

Rather than attempting to find common ground... you respond with meaningless, almost ridiculing one-liners... Okay fine. You're perfect and everyone else is an idiot. Feel better? If there's anything further I can do for you, please do not hesitate to ask.

No, I pointed out how I felt what you said was wrong. How is that meaningless one liners? What do you expect me to say about healthcare? Nobody knows what they want to replace it with, but their ideas in the past haven't exactly been that positive and we all know they're desperate to repeal Obamacare. What else?

turtledove says

So what's the answer Rashomon? What would make you happy? Absolute proof of future events? A time machine, perhaps? I'll work on that for you.

Eh? I simply pointed out why I disagreed with what you said. And what do you mean 'What's my answer?' He won the election. He and the Republican party will make the decisions. I think they will be poor for your country and more particularly for those white working class people who looked to him for answers to their problems, but we'll have to wait and see. More specifically, I wait with interest to see what happens when someone pricks the obvious thin skin of your new President. Do they intend to still keep him away from Twitter? Anyway the answer is obvious, make voting a legal requirement.

Nobody knows what they want to replace it with
=========

But, we kind of do. We want the regional barriers taken down to increase the number of insurers. We want to keep the pre-existing part because most of us agree that the practice of refusing coverage based on a prior history of diaper rash was taking the whole pre-existing condition thing to an extreme that was never intended. We want HSA so we can keep the tax benefit, but also keep the money if we don't have to dip into it. As it sits now, it's just consumed by higher premium prices, which we can never get back whether we are high consumer or low consumer of healthcare.

I cannot speak for the whole country... But ACA has reduced the number of insurers here in CA. When is that ever good for prices? Yes, let's let Anthem have the entire CA market. I'm sure they'll do the right thing and price their products fairly! Or better yet, Kaiser. ACA did that. It did that in a lot of places. But living in CA, we have to take what's offered in CA. And we're required by law to pay whatever they tell us. Like a tax. Can you imagine tax rates going up 20% in a single year? Since it's forced, it might as well be a tax. One that we don't get to vote on.... ever. One whose rates are controlled by corporations who can never be voted out of office.

I cannot speak for the whole country

--------------

You sure speak for we quite often. How many of you are there?

People want a million different things for healthcare. Do you think people started out wanting the ACA? That's what they could get through. You'll have a million and one interest groups pushing their particular agenda, so it's pretty obvious that what you'll end up with is extremely unclear, though it seems highly likely that the number of people covered will fall. Your healthcare system needs a root and branch fix. It isn't going to get it.

turtledove says

Can you imagine tax rates going up 20% in a single year?

The penalty for NOT buying the insurance went up more than 200% for next year.

So Yep, ACA is indeed a tax... it's the loophole treating it as such that allowed it to pass constitutional muster.

You sure speak for we quite often. How many of you are there?
===================

We isn't everyone. Obviously, I'm talking about like-minded individuals. If you're in a different we, that's okay, too.

That's what they could get through

---------------

This is a lie

Ppaca is what the democrats decided to give us, and for good reason. Follow the money

Obama was for single payer, before he was against it. Those lobbyists know, everyone has their price.

errc says

This is a lie

Ppaca is what the democrats decided to give us, and for good reason. Follow the money

Obama was for single payer, before he was against it. Those lobbyists know, everyone has their price.

Er, and why did they decide to give you that? Single payer wouldn't have gone through, so they went with some other (compromised) proposal, naturally juggling all the interested parties - that's the system you've created in your country.

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

turtledove says

Can you imagine tax rates going up 20% in a single year?

The penalty for NOT buying the insurance went up more than 200% for next year.

So Yep, ACA is indeed a tax... it's the loophole treating it as such that allowed it to pass constitutional muster.

A tax you are required to pay to private "insurance " companies

What are they insuring, anyways?

Just FYI: Trump won Ohio by more people (~450,000) than Hillary won over Trump in the Entire Country (~350,000).

Just to give you an idea of how slim her national "popular vote win" is.

errc says

What are they insuring, anyways?

Well, they're ensuring they get well paid in many cases.

Rashomon says

errc says

This is a lie

Ppaca is what the democrats decided to give us, and for good reason. Follow the money

Obama was for single payer, before he was against it. Those lobbyists know, everyone has their price.

Er, and why did they decide to give you that? Single payer wouldn't have gone through, so they went with some other (compromised) proposal.

I'm assuming because it was the most profitable course of action.

I cannot think of any other reason

The penalty for NOT buying the insurance went up more than 200% for next year.

So Yep, ACA is indeed a tax... it's the loophole treating it as such that allowed it to pass constitutional muster.
======================

Seriously, the most fucked up thing ever. And some say it's an accomplishment because we forced everyone to participate. I pay $13k/year (family of four) in premiums. Let's see... what did we consume this year? Kids' well checks... Flu shots... The kids are twelve, so they got some boosters. That's it. All for the bargain price of $13k! But that's not all, folks! Since there's still a deductible... I also paid for the services. So really, I paid $13k for pretty much the hell of it. Well not really. I get to say I'm compliant with the law. Maybe someday, the whole family will need heart, lung, liver transplants and we'll get our money's worth. The new American Dream!

If Health is Wealth, you couldn't assure a people be any poorer than they are with Heritage Foundation Care (Obamacare).