Why, yes, we who supported his 2016 campaign do indeed see women as inferior. We also like to tie women to train tracks while twirling our mustache, kick puppies, and more.
Well, people who supported his 2016 campaign supported a man who was caught bragging about sexual assault on camera, so it at the very least clearly indicated a lack of concern about that.
(He'd also been caught discriminating against black tenants for his properties, so there's also that!)
And people who supported Clinton's 2016 campaign supported a woman who called black men super predators. We knew this about Clinton well before she ever ran. Nobody knew Trump's private statements until almost before the election. If you think your argument stands I can make all sorts of generalizations about you based on the same argument. Is this a game worth playing?
You knew what? This is what Clinton said in a 1996 speech in support of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act:
"We’re making some progress. Much of it is related to the initiative called ‘community policing.’ Because we have finally gotten more police officers on the street. That was one of the goals that the president had when he pushed the crime bill that was passed in 1994.
But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs. Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel."
Clinton has acknowledged it was a poor choice of language. She could also potentially be criticized by Democrats for supporting a confrontational approach to the problem of gangs, rather than using education and support - but that reflects a political & democratic choice.
I don't think though this comment is in any way equivalent to what Trump said about abusing women. Your earlier posts relate to the tendency to put a political spin on things said by opponents and attack them personally rather than looking at policies - the attack on Clinton seems like a perfect example of that. I agree absolutely with you that type of action should not be supported - but that's not what happened with Trump where he was very openly boasting about actions that were both immoral and illegal. He's suggested before that he didn't actually say what he's caught on tape as saying, but his main defense has been that this was just locker room talk. I seem to remember someone saying on this thread before that such talk was not usual in locker rooms in the US. As someone that was quite sporty in my youth I can certainly say it was not usual in the UK .
That's why so many people voted for Putin, Erdogan, Orban, to name a few.
That part of the masses won't be swayed by logic, or complicated politics,
You say I'm twisting your words, but all I see is another ridiculous caricature. I'm sure you are sincere, but it just goes to show how little understanding, to say nothing of empathy, the left has for the right.
Just say you think I'm dumb, no need to use so many words to explain it. My poor brain can't take such complicated things.
Ascribing absurd or sinister views to other forumites is against Rule 1 of the politics thread. We will not have comments along these lines. If you have concerns about the words of another forumite or how they're treating you or another commenter, PM a moderator with your concerns and we will address it privately.
Getting away from the intricacies of who said what, there's some worrying news about China and Taiwan this morning. For several years China has been gradually building up pressure on Taiwan - for instance through creating new military defenses in the area, exercising military ships and planes near Taiwan and ramping up the nationalist rhetoric about "One China" and their historic right to bring Taiwan back into China through force if necessary.
Taiwan has generally stayed pretty quiet about this and just hoped things would eventually die back down and the status quo would continue. However, their President was comfortably re-elected a few days ago on a platform of independence and she is taking a much more confrontational position here.
It's a difficult balance for Taiwan. It looks like they've concluded that, if they continued to just keep quiet, there would still be a significant risk of an attack by China - and I think they're right to be concerned about that. The alternative strategy of talking about the risk and emphasizing their independence from China will certainly increase the risk that China will want to take action. By highlighting the problem and increasing international awareness, Taiwan may though be able to build a greater deterrence to offset that. In any case this is a dangerous situation though, particularly as problems with Hong Kong may increase the pressure on the Chinese government to take some form of nationalistic action.
Why, yes, we who supported his 2016 campaign do indeed see women as inferior. We also like to tie women to train tracks while twirling our mustache, kick puppies, and more.
Well, people who supported his 2016 campaign supported a man who was caught bragging about sexual assault on camera, so it at the very least clearly indicated a lack of concern about that.
(He'd also been caught discriminating against black tenants for his properties, so there's also that!)
And people who supported Clinton's 2016 campaign supported a woman who called black men super predators. We knew this about Clinton well before she ever ran. Nobody knew Trump's private statements until almost before the election. If you think your argument stands I can make all sorts of generalizations about you based on the same argument. Is this a game worth playing?
You knew what? This is what Clinton said in a 1996 speech in support of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act:
"We’re making some progress. Much of it is related to the initiative called ‘community policing.’ Because we have finally gotten more police officers on the street. That was one of the goals that the president had when he pushed the crime bill that was passed in 1994.
But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs. Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel."
Clinton has acknowledged it was a poor choice of language. She could also potentially be criticized by Democrats for supporting a confrontational approach to the problem of gangs, rather than using education and support - but that reflects a political & democratic choice.
I don't think though this comment is in any way equivalent to what Trump said about abusing women. Your earlier posts relate to the tendency to put a political spin on things said by opponents and attack them personally rather than looking at policies - the attack on Clinton seems like a perfect example of that. I agree absolutely with you that type of action should not be supported - but that's not what happened with Trump where he was very openly boasting about actions that were both immoral and illegal. He's suggested before that he didn't actually say what he's caught on tape as saying, but his main defense has been that this was just locker room talk. I seem to remember someone saying on this thread before that such talk was not usual in locker rooms in the US. As someone that was quite sporty in my youth I can certainly say it was not usual in the UK .
I'm amazed that you would downplay that statement when you know full well you would do the opposite were it to come out of Trump's mouth.
Virtually nobody defends her on this. Everyone acknowledges it was a racist statement. It only takes a little bit of context to get it. Bernie Sanders does, the media does, certainly the right does, I don't know the opinions of the rest of the Dem candidates but I'm sure I can guess. If you wanna die on that hill, be my guest, but it will be an awfully lonely one as the rest of the world not devoted utterly to partisanship can see the obvious. Speaking of the UK, even The Guardian says it was.
Of course, I'm not saying it makes you a bad person for not making that fact the centerpiece of your existence, so maybe it is just easier for me to have a tad of objectivity. Surely you don't agree with that line of thinking. It's actually okay to not care about every bad thing all the time and to focus on the big picture. You could make the case that electing Clinton is still the best choice for the most people, even with her love of all things war, and that doesn't make you evil, even if you're wrong. Amazing that some can't see that.
For the record, I simply don't agree with your judgement on what is equivalent, for one because you can't acknowledge even the most blatant and obvious faults of who you like when they are exploding at point blank range, and for two because the world revolves around a lot more than which candidate did or said what naughty thing at what time. The idea that this determines the ethics of a vote when the person in office influences who lives or dies, can afford or not afford the basic necessities, and so much more is beyond absurd.
@WarChiefZeke , I apologize for saying that you twisted my words and knew it. I shouldn't have said that, because I don't know your motives and therefore shouldn't assume. That was wrong, and I'm sorry.
The rest of my post remains the same.
@semiticgod , I'm sorry. I knew when I wrote it that I probably shouldn't. I should have known better.
Why, yes, we who supported his 2016 campaign do indeed see women as inferior. We also like to tie women to train tracks while twirling our mustache, kick puppies, and more.
Well, people who supported his 2016 campaign supported a man who was caught bragging about sexual assault on camera, so it at the very least clearly indicated a lack of concern about that.
(He'd also been caught discriminating against black tenants for his properties, so there's also that!)
And people who supported Clinton's 2016 campaign supported a woman who called black men super predators. We knew this about Clinton well before she ever ran. Nobody knew Trump's private statements until almost before the election. If you think your argument stands I can make all sorts of generalizations about you based on the same argument. Is this a game worth playing?
You knew what? This is what Clinton said in a 1996 speech in support of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act:
"We’re making some progress. Much of it is related to the initiative called ‘community policing.’ Because we have finally gotten more police officers on the street. That was one of the goals that the president had when he pushed the crime bill that was passed in 1994.
But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs. Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel."
Clinton has acknowledged it was a poor choice of language. She could also potentially be criticized by Democrats for supporting a confrontational approach to the problem of gangs, rather than using education and support - but that reflects a political & democratic choice.
I don't think though this comment is in any way equivalent to what Trump said about abusing women. Your earlier posts relate to the tendency to put a political spin on things said by opponents and attack them personally rather than looking at policies - the attack on Clinton seems like a perfect example of that. I agree absolutely with you that type of action should not be supported - but that's not what happened with Trump where he was very openly boasting about actions that were both immoral and illegal. He's suggested before that he didn't actually say what he's caught on tape as saying, but his main defense has been that this was just locker room talk. I seem to remember someone saying on this thread before that such talk was not usual in locker rooms in the US. As someone that was quite sporty in my youth I can certainly say it was not usual in the UK .
I'm amazed that you would downplay that statement when you know full well you would do the opposite were it to come out of Trump's mouth.
Virtually nobody defends her on this. Everyone acknowledges it was a racist statement. It only takes a little bit of context to get it. Bernie Sanders does, the media does, certainly the right does, I don't know the opinions of the rest of the Dem candidates but I'm sure I can guess. If you wanna die on that hill, be my guest, but it will be an awfully lonely one as the rest of the world not devoted utterly to partisanship can see the obvious. Speaking of the UK, even The Guardian says it was.
Of course, I'm not saying it makes you a bad person for not making that fact the centerpiece of your existence, so maybe it is just easier for me to have a tad of objectivity. Surely you don't agree with that line of thinking. It's actually okay to not care about every bad thing all the time and to focus on the big picture. You could make the case that electing Clinton is still the best choice for the most people, even with her love of all things war, and that doesn't make you evil, even if you're wrong. Amazing that some can't see that.
For the record, I simply don't agree with your judgement on what is equivalent, for one because you can't acknowledge even the most blatant and obvious faults of who you like when they are exploding at point blank range, and for two because the world revolves around a lot more than which candidate did or said what naughty thing at what time. The idea that this determines the ethics of a vote when the person in office influences who lives or dies, can afford or not afford the basic necessities, and so much more is beyond absurd.
I would not automatically condemn something Trump says, just because it's him saying it. I've supported his words and actions on more than one occasion, but I believe the reality is he just says and does objectionable things far more frequently than other leading politicians. I understand that pointing those out can seem tiresome, but there is a real dilemma there - the alternative being to simply accept Trump moving the goalposts on acceptable behavior.
I agree there are racist overtones to Clinton's statement, but the point I was making (and why I gave the exact words) was that the statement was very specifically about gangs, i.e. she was referring to a small sub-set of the population. I see no basis for believing that this represents some more fundamental statement that whites are inherently superior.
There doesn't seem much point discussing this particular issue further. I'll let others judge who's being objective about this issue and whether Clinton's words above really are as racist as Trump's words:
"I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
are sexist ...
Unfortunately, the reality of our situation is this: if the election were held tomorrow then *no one* would beat Trump, not even other Republicans (none of whom are even daring to run against him), and he is the *worst* they have to offer.
I have made this analogy before--political elections are like episodes of The Weakest Link, where the weakest candidate gets kicked out first, followed by the strongest candidate, and then all the middle-of-the-pack people fight among themsleves until the least objectionable person emerges victorious rather than the *best* candidate. The only difference is that in this game the winner gets a large box full of political powers as their prize.
wrong.
"The latest data, which was drawn from surveys of more than 40,000 registered voters from January 6 to 12, showed Sanders beating Trump by 4 percentage points, up from a previous 2 percent lead, at 46 percent compared to the president's 42 percent. Although Biden still performs slightly better—46 percent compared to 41 percent for Trump—Morning Consult noted that Sanders outperformed Biden among independents and young voters, or those 18 to 29 years old."
I'm amazed that you would downplay that statement when you know full well you would do the opposite were it to come out of Trump's mouth.
I wouldn't, and I can post to a post history that proves this (for instance, I didn't care when Trump said Russia should hack Clinton's email because it was obviously a joke, while most lefties reacted as if it was part of his election platform).
I also am on record for saying both Clintons and Obama should be in the Hague facing war crime charges with Bush, so I'm certainly not unable to acknowledge their faults. To add to that: Hillary's a neocon, strongly religious, and an aggressive hawk, and I don't like any of those things in political leaders.
Nonetheless, it is disingenuous in the extreme to compare Clinton's comment to Trump's statement, or to Trump refusing to rent to black people, or to his comments about black people at other times (like the one where he didn't want black people to handle his money, only guys "with yarmulkes"). They're not even remotely in the same ballpark.
If you think otherwise, perhaps you could explain why the comments referred to above are not far and away more bigoted than the Clinton example you brought up, to say nothing of Trump's long and well-attested history of other bigoted comments.
Except this is the same type of poll that had Clinton beating Trump as the numbers do not take into account the Electoral College.
The poll doesn't really matter because of how far out it is from the general election and because of margins of error, but if anyone beats Trump by 4 or 5 points, the electoral college will not realistically save him.
Unfortunately, the reality of our situation is this: if the election were held tomorrow then *no one* would beat Trump, not even other Republicans (none of whom are even daring to run against him), and he is the *worst* they have to offer.
I have made this analogy before--political elections are like episodes of The Weakest Link, where the weakest candidate gets kicked out first, followed by the strongest candidate, and then all the middle-of-the-pack people fight among themsleves until the least objectionable person emerges victorious rather than the *best* candidate. The only difference is that in this game the winner gets a large box full of political powers as their prize.
wrong.
"The latest data, which was drawn from surveys of more than 40,000 registered voters from January 6 to 12, showed Sanders beating Trump by 4 percentage points, up from a previous 2 percent lead, at 46 percent compared to the president's 42 percent. Although Biden still performs slightly better—46 percent compared to 41 percent for Trump—Morning Consult noted that Sanders outperformed Biden among independents and young voters, or those 18 to 29 years old."
Except this is the same type of poll that had Clinton beating Trump as the numbers do not take into account the Electoral College.
I agree the electoral college is the actual votes and millions of Americans could be screwed again by it, but the statement that "nobody can beat Trump" just does not ring true when most Americans don't want him around. But it is true as you say, the electoral college is what will pick the President, regardless of what Americans want.
I thought 2016 taught everyone not to place faith in polls. It appears that I was mistaken.
I have two questions about voters for this coming November. 1) What percentage of likely voters are still undecided? 2) *How* can they be "undecided" with everything they have seen from various news sources, even if we consider only the last year?
The Electoral College is the system we have; no individual person has to like it but they certainly have to live with it and candidates must take it into account. Without it, they need to campain only in the 13 most populous States to win the election, completely ignoring the rest of the nation--how, exactly, would that be "fair"? Incidentally, in order to get rid of the Electoral College would necessitate a Constitutional Amendment--even if there were enough support for such a move and we started on it today it would still probably take 10 years to become ratified.
I have two questions about voters for this coming November. 1) What percentage of likely voters are still undecided? 2) *How* can they be "undecided" with everything they have seen from various news sources, even if we consider only the last year?
1. I have no idea but
2. How they can be undecided is that they feel the economy is in good shape. Trump has signed some important trade deals. He can probably still sell the NK as well as the two high profile assassinations. Then people weigh this against pretty much everything else about the man and the fact that there is still not an opponent to compare him to, people maybe on a wait and see mode.
I thought 2016 taught everyone not to place faith in polls. It appears that I was mistaken.
Actually, what it should have taught you is that most reporters are innumerate. The polls in 2016 were more accurate than they were in 2012, and about as accurate as the average for the last few decades.
Having blind faith in polls is a problem (especially when you ignore things like uncertainty and margins of error, as reporters often do). Pretending they have no bearing on reality is just as wrong, however.
People have been bringing up the idea of abolishing the Electoral College since at least Nixon's first term. It hasn't happened in that time so it probably won't happen in the next 30 years, either. Maybe. I guess we'll just have to see.
In any event, it took a short while but a little number-crunching shows our likely current status. Looking at the results of the Presidential elections of 2012 and 2016 (the elections before then are too far back in time to address current population/demographic conditions), we find the following:
states which are solidly Republican: AL (9), AK (3), AZ (11), AR (6), GA (16), ID (4), IN (11), KS (6), KY (8), LA (8), MS (6), MO (10), MT (3), NB (5)*, NC (15), ND (3), OK (7), SC (9), SD (3), TN (11), TX (38), UT (6), WV (5), and WY (3) for a total of 206 electoral votes (NB has at-large electors)
states which are solidly Democrat: CA (55), CO (9), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), HI (4), IL (20), ME (4)*, MD (10), MA (11), MN (10), NV (6), NH (4), NJ (14), NM (5), NY (29), OR (7), RI (4), VT (3), VA (13), WA (12) for a total of 233 electoral votes (ME has at-large electors)
swing states, the ones which flipped between the two: FL (29), IA (6), MI (16), OH (18), PA (20), and WI (10) for a total of 99 electoral votes
At a quick glance, Republicans still have an uphill battle to win in November--their solid States do not outweigh the solid Democrat States. There will be token campaigns in the solid States by both respective parties; they know they have the votes locked up but they still need to spread the love around. The swing States, though....*sigh* they are going to receive *all* the attention and their votes are actually the ones which will determine the outcome in November. 85% of campaign time and money will be spent in those 6 States. Numerically, it does not appear possible that we have a situation where neither major candidate reaches 270 (it *is* possible but statically unlikely, so we may dismiss that scenario). If you live in any of those States, prepared to be slammed by around-the-clock campaigning once both major parties have held their national conventions.
*************
Without the Electoral College, we consider population (latest available Census numbers being used here). The total population of the solid Democrat States: 138,178,118. The total population of solid Republican States: 115,599,381. Neither of these is 50.1% so the population of the swing States (62,737,522) would again decide the results of the election. Of course, the problem with this assessment is that not everyone can cast a vote, the percentage of people who vote varies from State to State, etc. Still, the same people in the same locations will be deciding the outcome for the rest of us.
How is this argument about only campaigning in the largest cities with no electoral college valid when literally my entire adult life the only meaningful campaigning that has gone on has taken place in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan because of it?? Ohio and Florida alone have basically been deciding the Presidency on their own for 20 years. Every 4 years election night it is the same questions, which are "what are the numbers in the Ohio suburbs??" and "what is going on in Broward County??".
The only reason a Republican would visit Wyoming or North Dakota during an election cycle is to do so ONCE to check off a box on the "I visited all 50 states" talking point. It's also not 1890. Candidates aren't crossing the country on a steam engine. Information is available instantaneously. What difference does it make WHERE the campaign is holding a rally other than to the people who actually attend one. I went to one Presidential rally in my life in 2004 when John Kerry came to Minneapolis and it was really no different that attending a basketball game.
I thought 2016 taught everyone not to place faith in polls. It appears that I was mistaken.
Actually, what it should have taught you is that most reporters are innumerate. The polls in 2016 were more accurate than they were in 2012, and about as accurate as the average for the last few decades.
Having blind faith in polls is a problem (especially when you ignore things like uncertainty and margins of error, as reporters often do). Pretending they have no bearing on reality is just as wrong, however.
I just want to echo this point. Polls were generally as accurate as they have ever been. There was a small polling miss that swung a few states to Trump, and thus the election.
@Mathsorcerer - I think no one would argue if you put Ohio in the solidly GOP camp now. Even in 2018, which was a wave year, Ohio elected a GOP governor and looks to be trending more toward Iowa than Michigan.
Irrespective of that - the current situation is good for Democrats. While polling isn’t super predictive at this point, you’d still rather be ahead than behind and both Sanders and especially Biden lead in almost all national polls and in most battleground state polls.
Trump continues to talk about dishwashers not dispensing water at his rallies, and seems to have legitimately convinced the people in the crowd that this is actually something that is taking place. First off, you can tell Trump has never USED a dishwasher in his life because you don't sit there pushing a button on a dishwasher waiting for water to come out. To use a dishwasher, you can't even SEE what is happening on the inside of it at all, because it's closed. It's closed because it dispenses scalding hot water all over the inside of it. This line about "hitting a button 10 times and nothing is coming out" is absurd. But what's truly remarkable and disturbing is that the crowd is just cheering and nodding along like "yeah, he's right, I do hit my button on my dishwasher ten times and very little water comes out". He seems to have convinced them dishwashers work in a completely different way than what they do. What the fuck is he talking about?? I mean, did he once attempt to take a shit in a dishwasher and hit the start button expecting it to flush?? I mean I get it, it's some play to a common man trope about government regulation. People are also pretending to be upset about the shape of newer light bulbs. But this is just nonsense, and the fact that people think it somehow "makes sense" is terrifying.
Without the Electoral College, we consider population (latest available Census numbers being used here). The total population of the solid Democrat States: 138,178,118. The total population of solid Republican States: 115,599,381. Neither of these is 50.1% so the population of the swing States (62,737,522) would again decide the results of the election. Of course, the problem with this assessment is that not everyone can cast a vote, the percentage of people who vote varies from State to State, etc. Still, the same people in the same locations will be deciding the outcome for the rest of us.
Hard to edit my posts on mobile, so I’m making a second post to address this (sorry)
I think I disagree with this argument. Without the electoral college, a vote in Ohio is worth as much as a vote in New York. Since each state’s population won’t all vote as a monolith, Trump could reach out and try to turn out voters in Western New York rather than Southern Ohio. Battleground states might be a little more meaningful since their populations are more elastic (willing to vote for different parties in different elections), but it would still be more equitable than our current system.
How is this argument about only campaigning in the largest cities with no electoral college valid when literally my entire adult life the only meaningful campaigning that has gone on has taken place in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan because of it?? Ohio and Florida alone have basically been deciding the Presidency on their own for 20 years. Every 4 years election night it is the same questions, which are "what are the numbers in the Ohio suburbs??" and "what is going on in Broward County??".
To answer that question we need to look at county-by-county results of elections. Consider this map of the results. Now, look at Nevada--Clark County decides how the States votes under the Electoral College, so only Las Vegas and its suburbs matter. The same is true for States like Illinois, where Cook County and its 5 neighbors decide the results; the rest of the State is irrelevant. If we look at New York most of the State is red, but who cares since NYC *is* the State? Only in the swing states do we get scenarios where the population centers don't outweigh the rest of the State. I agree that it is weird but no one would have been able to foresee how our population would have settled itself.
As I noted, there have been calls to abolish the Electoral College since at least Nixon. At some point in the future I suspect the EC will go away, but doing so *does* require a Constitutional Amendment and it won't be an easy or overnight process.
@jjstraka34 I had not heard the dishwasher and light bulb stuff. Really? Are you sure you aren't being trolled by some website pretending to be news? I don't pay attention to Trump rallies so I have no way of knowing what he is saying.
I think I disagree with this argument. Without the electoral college, a vote in Ohio is worth as much as a vote in New York. Since each state’s population won’t all vote as a monolith, Trump could reach out and try to turn out voters in Western New York rather than Southern Ohio. Battleground states might be a little more meaningful since their populations are more elastic (willing to vote for different parties in different elections), but it would still be more equitable than our current system.
I never mind a dissenting opinion. Yes, in a non-EC system each person's vote counts the same, which means that how politicians approach States will be different than it is now. We will need to figure out exactly how things will work should the EC go away; however, since we still have the EC we must deal with the situation as it exists. As noted, the same four or five States will decide the election later this year just like they have the last five or six election cycles.
How is this argument about only campaigning in the largest cities with no electoral college valid when literally my entire adult life the only meaningful campaigning that has gone on has taken place in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan because of it?? Ohio and Florida alone have basically been deciding the Presidency on their own for 20 years. Every 4 years election night it is the same questions, which are "what are the numbers in the Ohio suburbs??" and "what is going on in Broward County??".
The only reason a Republican would visit Wyoming or North Dakota during an election cycle is to do so ONCE to check off a box on the "I visited all 50 states" talking point. It's also not 1890. Candidates aren't crossing the country on a steam engine. Information is available instantaneously. What difference does it make WHERE the campaign is holding a rally other than to the people who actually attend one. I went to one Presidential rally in my life in 2004 when John Kerry came to Minneapolis and it was really no different that attending a basketball game.
Just convince everyone in your state to switch their votes every election cycle and congrats, you’re now a swing state with all the love that comes with it.
And I am only half joking. I think Texas is ready to turn purple. The latest census will determine it with its urban centres. That and property rights with the Trump wall.
~
The only problem with the electoral college is that states have a winner take all. If more states adopted a percentage vote, and give every state 1 EC + a pop count instead of 2 EC, you’ll see results closer to popular vote but still have a chance to “steal” a close election.
~
I also learnt recently that the US Senate use to be picked by State governors and not voted in by the people. It’s why the Impeachment Trial is held there, as the Senate was suppose to be immune to popular opinion. Something to keep I mind when potential amendments come up. You never know what they’ll screw with in the future.
The topic of Texas turning purple has come up every now and then over at the Texas Tribune (a Left-leaning news source based in Austin, but they really are the best a covering the Legislature since they are located, literally, right down the street). My assessment of that situation is "it is only a matter of time". Recall that it was not all that long ago when Texas was mostly blue--it was not until Bush was elected governor that the State started turning red. These days, though, turning purple here is not because most voters are getting tired of Republicans but because so many people are abandoning California and moving Texas.
Why are all those people abandoning California? The taxes are too high, the environmental regulations make no sense--some of their wildfire problem is because the State disallows clearing brush from the ground around transformers and substations, the State AG no longer prosecutes theft of things like food or clothing if the value is under $900 (an entire market has cropped up where people will steal items valued at $50, walk a block, and sell them for $10--one such market is one block away from San Francisco city hall), and the homeless problem in many cities has gotten completely out of control. Most of these people head for Austin because Houston is, for them, too dirty, San Antonio isn't as nice, and Dallas is too dangerous. On the other hand, this helps Keep Austin Weird--where else will you see a street performer wearing a Darth Vader mask and a utilikilt, riding a unicycle, while playing the bagpipes?
These days, though, turning purple here is not because most voters are getting tired of Republicans but because so many people are abandoning California and moving Texas.
Why are all those people abandoning California? The taxes are too high, the environmental regulations make no sense--some of their wildfire problem is because the State disallows clearing brush from the ground around transformers and substations, the State AG no longer prosecutes theft of things like food or clothing if the value is under $900 (an entire market has cropped up where people will steal items valued at $50, walk a block, and sell them for $10--one such market is one block away from San Francisco city hall), and the homeless problem in many cities has gotten completely out of control. Most of these people head for Austin because Houston is, for them, too dirty, San Antonio isn't as nice, and Dallas is too dangerous. On the other hand, this helps Keep Austin Weird--where else will you see a street performer wearing a Darth Vader mask and a utilikilt, riding a unicycle, while playing the bagpipes?
Homelessness is a nationwide issue - a symptom of capitalism failing us and weak safety nets for Americans when times get tough you end up on the streets. The better weather and friendlier helping hands in California end up with people coming there from Texas and other states who do not take care of their people.
These homeless people and high taxes to take care of them are causing some working people to leave and head to states where taxes are lower - but so are worker protections and social safety nets - so these people can easily find themselves out on their ass and homeless and just might go back to California. It can lead to a nasty cycle highlighting the failures of Capitalism.
Hopefully some of the good people emigrating from California bring their liberal policies and destroy the regressive backwards policies in other states that are driving the crisis to begin with.
The better weather and friendlier helping hands in California end up with people coming there from Texas and other states who do not take care of their people.
I am uncertain what news sources you are perusing on a daily or weekly basis but no outlet, whether conservative or liberal, is citing news stories of people in great numbes leaving Texas for California. Instead, the trend is overwhelmingly "leaving California for Texas" because the conditions in California are not conducive to living any sort of life for anyone who is not an ultra-wealthy individual. Speaking of ultra-wealthy individuals....the last few times measures came up before the Los Angeles City Council to try and improve conditions for homeless people by doing things such as converting hotels into low-cost housing, these people got motivated to get the measures killed because it would decrease their property values. Oh, yes--these same ultra-wealthy individuals are proud Democrats.
Hopefully some of the good people emigrating from California bring their liberal policies and destroy the regressive backwards policies in other states that are driving the crisis to begin with.
No, we have already enacted measures here to make certain that the progressives immigrating here, seeking to ruin this land like they ruined their original land--like a plague of locusts--cannot enact their destructive policies. Raising taxes or enacting a State income tax requires a 2/3 majority of both Houses of the Legislature *and* a popular vote by the people.
Since California likes paying high prices, though, I guess we could double the price of all that oil, natural gas, and electricity they keep buying from us. Seems fair.
I also forgot one of the reasons I left here last time, taking a vacation for several months. Thank you for reminding me. Since we do not have an "ignore" feature here, I will simply have to put you on the list and do it manually.
No, we have already enacted measures here to make certain that the progressives immigrating here, seeking to ruin this land like they ruined their original land--like a plague of locusts--cannot enact their destructive policies. Raising taxes or enacting a State income tax requires a 2/3 majority of both Houses of the Legislature *and* a popular vote by the people.
Umm, but... the fact they can't raise taxes is actually the source of a goodly part of California's problems in the first place.
(And say what you will about California, but the overall economic picture of red states versus blue states does not exactly support the notion that red states are better economic managers. Of course, I would argue that doesn't take into account structural and historical factors... but that's why I wouldn't make that argument to begin with.)
The better weather and friendlier helping hands in California end up with people coming there from Texas and other states who do not take care of their people.
I am uncertain what news sources you are perusing on a daily or weekly basis but no outlet, whether conservative or liberal, is citing news stories of people in great numbes leaving Texas for California. Instead, the trend is overwhelmingly "leaving California for Texas" because the conditions in California are not conducive to living any sort of life for anyone who is not an ultra-wealthy individual. Speaking of ultra-wealthy individuals....the last few times measures came up before the Los Angeles City Council to try and improve conditions for homeless people by doing things such as converting hotels into low-cost housing, these people got motivated to get the measures killed because it would decrease their property values. Oh, yes--these same ultra-wealthy individuals are proud Democrats.
Hopefully some of the good people emigrating from California bring their liberal policies and destroy the regressive backwards policies in other states that are driving the crisis to begin with.
No, we have already enacted measures here to make certain that the progressives immigrating here, seeking to ruin this land like they ruined their original land--like a plague of locusts--cannot enact their destructive policies. Raising taxes or enacting a State income tax requires a 2/3 majority of both Houses of the Legislature *and* a popular vote by the people.
Since California likes paying high prices, though, I guess we could double the price of all that oil, natural gas, and electricity they keep buying from us. Seems fair.
I also forgot one of the reasons I left here last time, taking a vacation for several months. Thank you for reminding me. Since we do not have an "ignore" feature here, I will simply have to put you on the list and do it manually.
Heya @Mathsorcerer!
I'm glad you're back so you got that going for you...
I have seen this attittude that people from California should borderline not be allowed to move to other states and that they are a "plague" before, and I've mentioned it before. That isn't advocating for federalism, that is advocating for 50 separate countries. It's also why I laugh my ass off when red state conservatives complain about being looked down upon. The rhetoric around "people from California" is that they are literally a biblical affliction. This is STANDARD rhetoric among elected Republican officials, starting at the top.
When Obama says something like "clinging to guns and religion", it is, at worst, condescending. Standard right-wing comments about New York and San Francisco begin at outright hostility and then proceed into straight-up dehumanization and making entire states seem like adversarial nations, right up to threatening to withhold federal disaster relief based on how the state votes. There is, once again, no equivalency.
I have seen this attittude that people from California should borderline not be allowed to move to other states and that they are a "plague" before, and I've mentioned it before. That isn't advocating for federalism, that is advocating for 50 separate countries. It's also why I laugh my ass off when red state conservatives complain about being looked down upon. The rhetoric around "people from California" is that they are literally a biblical affliction. This is STANDARD rhetoric among elected Republican officials, starting at the top.
When Obama says something like "clinging to guns and religion", it is, at worst, condescending. Standard right-wing comments about New York and San Francisco begin at outright hostility and then proceed into straight-up dehumanization and making entire states seem like adversarial nations, right up to threatening to withhold federal disaster relief based on how the state votes. There is, once again, no equivalency.
To be fair, California seems to be more the whipping boy. I don't hear nearly as much rhetoric about New York or Massachusetts. I think the mouthy Hollywood people put that big ol' bullseye on the Golden State...
I have seen this attittude that people from California should borderline not be allowed to move to other states and that they are a "plague" before, and I've mentioned it before. That isn't advocating for federalism, that is advocating for 50 separate countries. It's also why I laugh my ass off when red state conservatives complain about being looked down upon. The rhetoric around "people from California" is that they are literally a biblical affliction. This is STANDARD rhetoric among elected Republican officials, starting at the top.
When Obama says something like "clinging to guns and religion", it is, at worst, condescending. Standard right-wing comments about New York and San Francisco begin at outright hostility and then proceed into straight-up dehumanization and making entire states seem like adversarial nations, right up to threatening to withhold federal disaster relief based on how the state votes. There is, once again, no equivalency.
To be fair, California seems to be more the whipping boy. I don't hear nearly as much rhetoric about New York or Massachusetts. I think the mouthy Hollywood people put that big ol' bullseye on the Golden State...
The state that pays 14 billion more than they get back in federal funds and (as I've demonstrated through basic math on at least half a dozen occasions) is WOEFULLY underrepresented at every level of the federal government based on their relative population to other states (even the House). There is literally no less legitimate target for anyone's ire.
erm....we *are* 50 separate countries. It says so in the Preamble, which concludes "the United States of America". The Federal Government's job is to manage the military, offer postal services, deal with foreign nations, and settle disputes between States. Everything else is crap we have manufactured out of thin air since then--Department of the Interior? That isn't in the Constitution. Federal Reserve? Nope, not there either. War Powers Act and Patriot Act? Those are *definitely* not in there.
Before you jump to California's defense, though, you might want to consider one fact: you aren't from California, and so they think that *you* are a second-class citizen behind them, as well.
@Ayiekie California can raise taxes even higher than they are now whenever they want to; their Legislature need only convene, raise them, then have the governor sign the bill. Every time the Texas Tribune interviews a recent California arrival in Austin, though, they cite "high taxes" as one of the reasons they left. If you leave a State because of X then why would you want to implement X in your new home State?
personal disclosure: my psychotic ex was from California; she would constanly extol its virtues and express her desire to go back there. I wish she had done so before she attacked me with a knife.
*************
The House has *finally* approved of, and signed off on, the Articles of Impeachment. My advice to the Senate has been "convene the trial, read the text of the Articles out loud, give a copy to any Senator who wants one, discuss/debate the for a few days, then hold a vote as to whether or not to convict". This is not a criminal trial so the usual things which apply to criminal trials do not apply here--they don't need to have witnesses, or hear testimony, or cross-examine anyone. I think they are going to do some of that, though, but probably only for the sake of appearances. Everyone already knows how the vote is going to go so why waste the time? I thought that about the House, as well--why waste all that time when they were going to impeach Trump no matter what they found?
Anyway....Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar have to suspend campaigning to stay in Washington, D. C. for the duration, which helps Biden.
Comments
You knew what? This is what Clinton said in a 1996 speech in support of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act:
"We’re making some progress. Much of it is related to the initiative called ‘community policing.’ Because we have finally gotten more police officers on the street. That was one of the goals that the president had when he pushed the crime bill that was passed in 1994.
But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs. Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel."
Clinton has acknowledged it was a poor choice of language. She could also potentially be criticized by Democrats for supporting a confrontational approach to the problem of gangs, rather than using education and support - but that reflects a political & democratic choice.
I don't think though this comment is in any way equivalent to what Trump said about abusing women. Your earlier posts relate to the tendency to put a political spin on things said by opponents and attack them personally rather than looking at policies - the attack on Clinton seems like a perfect example of that. I agree absolutely with you that type of action should not be supported - but that's not what happened with Trump where he was very openly boasting about actions that were both immoral and illegal. He's suggested before that he didn't actually say what he's caught on tape as saying, but his main defense has been that this was just locker room talk. I seem to remember someone saying on this thread before that such talk was not usual in locker rooms in the US. As someone that was quite sporty in my youth I can certainly say it was not usual in the UK
You say I'm twisting your words, but all I see is another ridiculous caricature. I'm sure you are sincere, but it just goes to show how little understanding, to say nothing of empathy, the left has for the right.
Just say you think I'm dumb, no need to use so many words to explain it. My poor brain can't take such complicated things.
Taiwan has generally stayed pretty quiet about this and just hoped things would eventually die back down and the status quo would continue. However, their President was comfortably re-elected a few days ago on a platform of independence and she is taking a much more confrontational position here.
It's a difficult balance for Taiwan. It looks like they've concluded that, if they continued to just keep quiet, there would still be a significant risk of an attack by China - and I think they're right to be concerned about that. The alternative strategy of talking about the risk and emphasizing their independence from China will certainly increase the risk that China will want to take action. By highlighting the problem and increasing international awareness, Taiwan may though be able to build a greater deterrence to offset that. In any case this is a dangerous situation though, particularly as problems with Hong Kong may increase the pressure on the Chinese government to take some form of nationalistic action.
I'm amazed that you would downplay that statement when you know full well you would do the opposite were it to come out of Trump's mouth.
Virtually nobody defends her on this. Everyone acknowledges it was a racist statement. It only takes a little bit of context to get it. Bernie Sanders does, the media does, certainly the right does, I don't know the opinions of the rest of the Dem candidates but I'm sure I can guess. If you wanna die on that hill, be my guest, but it will be an awfully lonely one as the rest of the world not devoted utterly to partisanship can see the obvious. Speaking of the UK, even The Guardian says it was.
Of course, I'm not saying it makes you a bad person for not making that fact the centerpiece of your existence, so maybe it is just easier for me to have a tad of objectivity. Surely you don't agree with that line of thinking. It's actually okay to not care about every bad thing all the time and to focus on the big picture. You could make the case that electing Clinton is still the best choice for the most people, even with her love of all things war, and that doesn't make you evil, even if you're wrong. Amazing that some can't see that.
For the record, I simply don't agree with your judgement on what is equivalent, for one because you can't acknowledge even the most blatant and obvious faults of who you like when they are exploding at point blank range, and for two because the world revolves around a lot more than which candidate did or said what naughty thing at what time. The idea that this determines the ethics of a vote when the person in office influences who lives or dies, can afford or not afford the basic necessities, and so much more is beyond absurd.
The rest of my post remains the same.
@semiticgod , I'm sorry. I knew when I wrote it that I probably shouldn't. I should have known better.
I would not automatically condemn something Trump says, just because it's him saying it. I've supported his words and actions on more than one occasion, but I believe the reality is he just says and does objectionable things far more frequently than other leading politicians. I understand that pointing those out can seem tiresome, but there is a real dilemma there - the alternative being to simply accept Trump moving the goalposts on acceptable behavior.
I agree there are racist overtones to Clinton's statement, but the point I was making (and why I gave the exact words) was that the statement was very specifically about gangs, i.e. she was referring to a small sub-set of the population. I see no basis for believing that this represents some more fundamental statement that whites are inherently superior.
There doesn't seem much point discussing this particular issue further. I'll let others judge who's being objective about this issue and whether Clinton's words above really are as racist as Trump's words:
"I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
are sexist ...
Except this is the same type of poll that had Clinton beating Trump as the numbers do not take into account the Electoral College.
I wouldn't, and I can post to a post history that proves this (for instance, I didn't care when Trump said Russia should hack Clinton's email because it was obviously a joke, while most lefties reacted as if it was part of his election platform).
I also am on record for saying both Clintons and Obama should be in the Hague facing war crime charges with Bush, so I'm certainly not unable to acknowledge their faults. To add to that: Hillary's a neocon, strongly religious, and an aggressive hawk, and I don't like any of those things in political leaders.
Nonetheless, it is disingenuous in the extreme to compare Clinton's comment to Trump's statement, or to Trump refusing to rent to black people, or to his comments about black people at other times (like the one where he didn't want black people to handle his money, only guys "with yarmulkes"). They're not even remotely in the same ballpark.
If you think otherwise, perhaps you could explain why the comments referred to above are not far and away more bigoted than the Clinton example you brought up, to say nothing of Trump's long and well-attested history of other bigoted comments.
The poll doesn't really matter because of how far out it is from the general election and because of margins of error, but if anyone beats Trump by 4 or 5 points, the electoral college will not realistically save him.
I agree the electoral college is the actual votes and millions of Americans could be screwed again by it, but the statement that "nobody can beat Trump" just does not ring true when most Americans don't want him around. But it is true as you say, the electoral college is what will pick the President, regardless of what Americans want.
I have two questions about voters for this coming November. 1) What percentage of likely voters are still undecided? 2) *How* can they be "undecided" with everything they have seen from various news sources, even if we consider only the last year?
The Electoral College is the system we have; no individual person has to like it but they certainly have to live with it and candidates must take it into account. Without it, they need to campain only in the 13 most populous States to win the election, completely ignoring the rest of the nation--how, exactly, would that be "fair"? Incidentally, in order to get rid of the Electoral College would necessitate a Constitutional Amendment--even if there were enough support for such a move and we started on it today it would still probably take 10 years to become ratified.
1. I have no idea but
2. How they can be undecided is that they feel the economy is in good shape. Trump has signed some important trade deals. He can probably still sell the NK as well as the two high profile assassinations. Then people weigh this against pretty much everything else about the man and the fact that there is still not an opponent to compare him to, people maybe on a wait and see mode.
Actually, what it should have taught you is that most reporters are innumerate. The polls in 2016 were more accurate than they were in 2012, and about as accurate as the average for the last few decades.
Having blind faith in polls is a problem (especially when you ignore things like uncertainty and margins of error, as reporters often do). Pretending they have no bearing on reality is just as wrong, however.
In any event, it took a short while but a little number-crunching shows our likely current status. Looking at the results of the Presidential elections of 2012 and 2016 (the elections before then are too far back in time to address current population/demographic conditions), we find the following:
states which are solidly Republican: AL (9), AK (3), AZ (11), AR (6), GA (16), ID (4), IN (11), KS (6), KY (8), LA (8), MS (6), MO (10), MT (3), NB (5)*, NC (15), ND (3), OK (7), SC (9), SD (3), TN (11), TX (38), UT (6), WV (5), and WY (3) for a total of 206 electoral votes (NB has at-large electors)
states which are solidly Democrat: CA (55), CO (9), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), HI (4), IL (20), ME (4)*, MD (10), MA (11), MN (10), NV (6), NH (4), NJ (14), NM (5), NY (29), OR (7), RI (4), VT (3), VA (13), WA (12) for a total of 233 electoral votes (ME has at-large electors)
swing states, the ones which flipped between the two: FL (29), IA (6), MI (16), OH (18), PA (20), and WI (10) for a total of 99 electoral votes
At a quick glance, Republicans still have an uphill battle to win in November--their solid States do not outweigh the solid Democrat States. There will be token campaigns in the solid States by both respective parties; they know they have the votes locked up but they still need to spread the love around. The swing States, though....*sigh* they are going to receive *all* the attention and their votes are actually the ones which will determine the outcome in November. 85% of campaign time and money will be spent in those 6 States. Numerically, it does not appear possible that we have a situation where neither major candidate reaches 270 (it *is* possible but statically unlikely, so we may dismiss that scenario). If you live in any of those States, prepared to be slammed by around-the-clock campaigning once both major parties have held their national conventions.
*************
Without the Electoral College, we consider population (latest available Census numbers being used here). The total population of the solid Democrat States: 138,178,118. The total population of solid Republican States: 115,599,381. Neither of these is 50.1% so the population of the swing States (62,737,522) would again decide the results of the election. Of course, the problem with this assessment is that not everyone can cast a vote, the percentage of people who vote varies from State to State, etc. Still, the same people in the same locations will be deciding the outcome for the rest of us.
The only reason a Republican would visit Wyoming or North Dakota during an election cycle is to do so ONCE to check off a box on the "I visited all 50 states" talking point. It's also not 1890. Candidates aren't crossing the country on a steam engine. Information is available instantaneously. What difference does it make WHERE the campaign is holding a rally other than to the people who actually attend one. I went to one Presidential rally in my life in 2004 when John Kerry came to Minneapolis and it was really no different that attending a basketball game.
I just want to echo this point. Polls were generally as accurate as they have ever been. There was a small polling miss that swung a few states to Trump, and thus the election.
@Mathsorcerer - I think no one would argue if you put Ohio in the solidly GOP camp now. Even in 2018, which was a wave year, Ohio elected a GOP governor and looks to be trending more toward Iowa than Michigan.
Irrespective of that - the current situation is good for Democrats. While polling isn’t super predictive at this point, you’d still rather be ahead than behind and both Sanders and especially Biden lead in almost all national polls and in most battleground state polls.
Hard to edit my posts on mobile, so I’m making a second post to address this (sorry)
I think I disagree with this argument. Without the electoral college, a vote in Ohio is worth as much as a vote in New York. Since each state’s population won’t all vote as a monolith, Trump could reach out and try to turn out voters in Western New York rather than Southern Ohio. Battleground states might be a little more meaningful since their populations are more elastic (willing to vote for different parties in different elections), but it would still be more equitable than our current system.
To answer that question we need to look at county-by-county results of elections. Consider this map of the results. Now, look at Nevada--Clark County decides how the States votes under the Electoral College, so only Las Vegas and its suburbs matter. The same is true for States like Illinois, where Cook County and its 5 neighbors decide the results; the rest of the State is irrelevant. If we look at New York most of the State is red, but who cares since NYC *is* the State? Only in the swing states do we get scenarios where the population centers don't outweigh the rest of the State. I agree that it is weird but no one would have been able to foresee how our population would have settled itself.
As I noted, there have been calls to abolish the Electoral College since at least Nixon. At some point in the future I suspect the EC will go away, but doing so *does* require a Constitutional Amendment and it won't be an easy or overnight process.
@jjstraka34 I had not heard the dishwasher and light bulb stuff. Really? Are you sure you aren't being trolled by some website pretending to be news? I don't pay attention to Trump rallies so I have no way of knowing what he is saying.
I never mind a dissenting opinion. Yes, in a non-EC system each person's vote counts the same, which means that how politicians approach States will be different than it is now. We will need to figure out exactly how things will work should the EC go away; however, since we still have the EC we must deal with the situation as it exists. As noted, the same four or five States will decide the election later this year just like they have the last five or six election cycles.
Just convince everyone in your state to switch their votes every election cycle and congrats, you’re now a swing state with all the love that comes with it.
And I am only half joking. I think Texas is ready to turn purple. The latest census will determine it with its urban centres. That and property rights with the Trump wall.
~
The only problem with the electoral college is that states have a winner take all. If more states adopted a percentage vote, and give every state 1 EC + a pop count instead of 2 EC, you’ll see results closer to popular vote but still have a chance to “steal” a close election.
~
I also learnt recently that the US Senate use to be picked by State governors and not voted in by the people. It’s why the Impeachment Trial is held there, as the Senate was suppose to be immune to popular opinion. Something to keep I mind when potential amendments come up. You never know what they’ll screw with in the future.
Why are all those people abandoning California? The taxes are too high, the environmental regulations make no sense--some of their wildfire problem is because the State disallows clearing brush from the ground around transformers and substations, the State AG no longer prosecutes theft of things like food or clothing if the value is under $900 (an entire market has cropped up where people will steal items valued at $50, walk a block, and sell them for $10--one such market is one block away from San Francisco city hall), and the homeless problem in many cities has gotten completely out of control. Most of these people head for Austin because Houston is, for them, too dirty, San Antonio isn't as nice, and Dallas is too dangerous. On the other hand, this helps Keep Austin Weird--where else will you see a street performer wearing a Darth Vader mask and a utilikilt, riding a unicycle, while playing the bagpipes?
Homelessness is a nationwide issue - a symptom of capitalism failing us and weak safety nets for Americans when times get tough you end up on the streets. The better weather and friendlier helping hands in California end up with people coming there from Texas and other states who do not take care of their people.
These homeless people and high taxes to take care of them are causing some working people to leave and head to states where taxes are lower - but so are worker protections and social safety nets - so these people can easily find themselves out on their ass and homeless and just might go back to California. It can lead to a nasty cycle highlighting the failures of Capitalism.
Hopefully some of the good people emigrating from California bring their liberal policies and destroy the regressive backwards policies in other states that are driving the crisis to begin with.
I am uncertain what news sources you are perusing on a daily or weekly basis but no outlet, whether conservative or liberal, is citing news stories of people in great numbes leaving Texas for California. Instead, the trend is overwhelmingly "leaving California for Texas" because the conditions in California are not conducive to living any sort of life for anyone who is not an ultra-wealthy individual. Speaking of ultra-wealthy individuals....the last few times measures came up before the Los Angeles City Council to try and improve conditions for homeless people by doing things such as converting hotels into low-cost housing, these people got motivated to get the measures killed because it would decrease their property values. Oh, yes--these same ultra-wealthy individuals are proud Democrats.
No, we have already enacted measures here to make certain that the progressives immigrating here, seeking to ruin this land like they ruined their original land--like a plague of locusts--cannot enact their destructive policies. Raising taxes or enacting a State income tax requires a 2/3 majority of both Houses of the Legislature *and* a popular vote by the people.
Since California likes paying high prices, though, I guess we could double the price of all that oil, natural gas, and electricity they keep buying from us. Seems fair.
I also forgot one of the reasons I left here last time, taking a vacation for several months. Thank you for reminding me. Since we do not have an "ignore" feature here, I will simply have to put you on the list and do it manually.
Umm, but... the fact they can't raise taxes is actually the source of a goodly part of California's problems in the first place.
(And say what you will about California, but the overall economic picture of red states versus blue states does not exactly support the notion that red states are better economic managers. Of course, I would argue that doesn't take into account structural and historical factors... but that's why I wouldn't make that argument to begin with.)
Heya @Mathsorcerer!
I'm glad you're back so you got that going for you...
When Obama says something like "clinging to guns and religion", it is, at worst, condescending. Standard right-wing comments about New York and San Francisco begin at outright hostility and then proceed into straight-up dehumanization and making entire states seem like adversarial nations, right up to threatening to withhold federal disaster relief based on how the state votes. There is, once again, no equivalency.
To be fair, California seems to be more the whipping boy. I don't hear nearly as much rhetoric about New York or Massachusetts. I think the mouthy Hollywood people put that big ol' bullseye on the Golden State...
The state that pays 14 billion more than they get back in federal funds and (as I've demonstrated through basic math on at least half a dozen occasions) is WOEFULLY underrepresented at every level of the federal government based on their relative population to other states (even the House). There is literally no less legitimate target for anyone's ire.
erm....we *are* 50 separate countries. It says so in the Preamble, which concludes "the United States of America". The Federal Government's job is to manage the military, offer postal services, deal with foreign nations, and settle disputes between States. Everything else is crap we have manufactured out of thin air since then--Department of the Interior? That isn't in the Constitution. Federal Reserve? Nope, not there either. War Powers Act and Patriot Act? Those are *definitely* not in there.
Before you jump to California's defense, though, you might want to consider one fact: you aren't from California, and so they think that *you* are a second-class citizen behind them, as well.
@Ayiekie California can raise taxes even higher than they are now whenever they want to; their Legislature need only convene, raise them, then have the governor sign the bill. Every time the Texas Tribune interviews a recent California arrival in Austin, though, they cite "high taxes" as one of the reasons they left. If you leave a State because of X then why would you want to implement X in your new home State?
personal disclosure: my psychotic ex was from California; she would constanly extol its virtues and express her desire to go back there. I wish she had done so before she attacked me with a knife.
*************
The House has *finally* approved of, and signed off on, the Articles of Impeachment. My advice to the Senate has been "convene the trial, read the text of the Articles out loud, give a copy to any Senator who wants one, discuss/debate the for a few days, then hold a vote as to whether or not to convict". This is not a criminal trial so the usual things which apply to criminal trials do not apply here--they don't need to have witnesses, or hear testimony, or cross-examine anyone. I think they are going to do some of that, though, but probably only for the sake of appearances. Everyone already knows how the vote is going to go so why waste the time? I thought that about the House, as well--why waste all that time when they were going to impeach Trump no matter what they found?
Anyway....Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar have to suspend campaigning to stay in Washington, D. C. for the duration, which helps Biden.