Political Roundtable - Part VII

[dckingsfan]

..."Minorities, classified as those of any race other than non-Hispanic, single-race whites, currently constitute about a third of the U.S. population, according to Census figures. But by 2042, they are projected to become the majority, making up more than half the population. By 2050, 54 percent of the population will be minorities."

..."In a major shift in immigration patterns, Asians will surge past Hispanics to become the largest group of immigrants heading to the US by 2065, according to estimates in a new study."

Black/White racism will become mute over the next 50 years, IMO and based upon the projections.

Since Asian's have also been the focus of racism from time to time in the US, it is going to be an interesting dynamic.

[dckingsfan]

I feel bad for John Boehner. He had an impossible job. The country is so divided nowadays. It's like he was the human analog for being stuck between both sides while still trying to legislate.

In watching his affect during the Pope's speech yesterday, it appears that he found some peace with a future that didn't include a speakership during the speech. Given his frequent tears (and his 20-year quest to get a Pope to address Congress), it appears that he's a devout Catholic - though I'm just guessing at this. I hope Boehner finds happiness and peace in his future endeavors. And if he doesn't need the money and is a devout Catholic, given his reaction to the Pope yesterday, perhaps he ought to consider his next steps to include a job that's associated with his faith.

I am just hoping this will be the impetus for a new party. I think there is a large segment of the Republican community that isn't represented by the social conservatives in their party.

"If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day. That's a heck of a day. You do that seven days a week, you're going to have something special."
- Jimmy V

[dckingsfan]

The electoral college could be fixed without constitutional amendment if (enough) individual states each passed
a law saying their state would designate that the winner of the popular vote nationally would receive all their
electoral college votes.

But I agree, the electoral college is now an anachronism that needs to be legislated into the dustbin
of history, especially before clever and power hungry legislatures start playing shenanigans with
the presidential election in a way that might result in a minority vote getter winning the election.

My solution is to break the United States up into 5 or 6 regional countries (or a lot more would be fine with me). It makes no sense for the people of Idaho to be governed by the people of the East Coast. They're an entirely different people with different economic and cultural interests and a different economy.

When the nation was founded, there was one congressman for every 35,000 citizens. It was conceivably possible for that representative to know at least one member of each family, or at least everyone knew someone who knew their congressman. Now, there is one congressman for every 750,000 citizens.

I would rather we take over Canada and Mexico than have a bunch of small countries warring with each other - as has typically happened when small countries are adjacent to each other.

[Induveca]

..."Minorities, classified as those of any race other than non-Hispanic, single-race whites, currently constitute about a third of the U.S. population, according to Census figures. But by 2042, they are projected to become the majority, making up more than half the population. By 2050, 54 percent of the population will be minorities."

..."In a major shift in immigration patterns, Asians will surge past Hispanics to become the largest group of immigrants heading to the US by 2065, according to estimates in a new study."

Black/White racism will become mute over the next 50 years, IMO and based upon the projections.

Since Asian's have also been the focus of racism from time to time in the US, it is going to be an interesting dynamic.

Welcome to my life. As American politics focus on black/white as if it were 1790, they're ignoring Latinos completely.

I grew up where racism was in different shades of brown. Where people with Sammy Sosa's complexion thought Haitians were too black, and openly chided them for it.

In Central America? Look too "Indio" (obvious Inca/Mayan features) and you're quickly marginalized. Asia? Let's just say Filipinos, and Indonesians are essentially treated as slave labor throughout much of SE Asia. Chinese, South Koreans and to a lesser extent Japanese (they focus mostly on Chinese and Korean) are quite open about their disdain for the "Filipino" look.

All of that is already in the US. I'm curious to watch the first lawsuit over equal opportunity employment by the first white guy who heads uptown in New York and applies at a thriving Dominican livery company.....or to Koreatown to become a waiter at a high end Bulgogi restaurant.

[nate33]

The electoral college could be fixed without constitutional amendment if (enough) individual states each passed
a law saying their state would designate that the winner of the popular vote nationally would receive all their
electoral college votes.

But I agree, the electoral college is now an anachronism that needs to be legislated into the dustbin
of history, especially before clever and power hungry legislatures start playing shenanigans with
the presidential election in a way that might result in a minority vote getter winning the election.

My solution is to break the United States up into 5 or 6 regional countries (or a lot more would be fine with me). It makes no sense for the people of Idaho to be governed by the people of the East Coast. They're an entirely different people with different economic and cultural interests and a different economy.

When the nation was founded, there was one congressman for every 35,000 citizens. It was conceivably possible for that representative to know at least one member of each family, or at least everyone knew someone who knew their congressman. Now, there is one congressman for every 750,000 citizens.

I would rather we take over Canada and Mexico than have a bunch of small countries warring with each other - as has typically happened when small countries are adjacent to each other.

Please.

Name me one instance where two free market democracies went to war with each other.

[montestewart]

My solution is to break the United States up into 5 or 6 regional countries (or a lot more would be fine with me). It makes no sense for the people of Idaho to be governed by the people of the East Coast. They're an entirely different people with different economic and cultural interests and a different economy.

When the nation was founded, there was one congressman for every 35,000 citizens. It was conceivably possible for that representative to know at least one member of each family, or at least everyone knew someone who knew their congressman. Now, there is one congressman for every 750,000 citizens.

I would rather we take over Canada and Mexico than have a bunch of small countries warring with each other - as has typically happened when small countries are adjacent to each other.

Please.

Name me one instance where two free market democracies went to war with each other.

CSA vs. USA? Is this gonna be on the test?

[dckingsfan]

My solution is to break the United States up into 5 or 6 regional countries (or a lot more would be fine with me). It makes no sense for the people of Idaho to be governed by the people of the East Coast. They're an entirely different people with different economic and cultural interests and a different economy.

When the nation was founded, there was one congressman for every 35,000 citizens. It was conceivably possible for that representative to know at least one member of each family, or at least everyone knew someone who knew their congressman. Now, there is one congressman for every 750,000 citizens.

I would rather we take over Canada and Mexico than have a bunch of small countries warring with each other - as has typically happened when small countries are adjacent to each other.

Please.

Name me one instance where two free market democracies went to war with each other.

When these countries split off - we will know they are going to stay free market democracies? Will we want walls along the borders to keep folks out? Just saying - I would rather have one country than many little countries. Now, if you are talking greater states rights - count me in...

[dckingsfan]

..."Minorities, classified as those of any race other than non-Hispanic, single-race whites, currently constitute about a third of the U.S. population, according to Census figures. But by 2042, they are projected to become the majority, making up more than half the population. By 2050, 54 percent of the population will be minorities."

..."In a major shift in immigration patterns, Asians will surge past Hispanics to become the largest group of immigrants heading to the US by 2065, according to estimates in a new study."

Black/White racism will become mute over the next 50 years, IMO and based upon the projections.

Since Asian's have also been the focus of racism from time to time in the US, it is going to be an interesting dynamic.

Welcome to my life. As American politics focus on black/white as if it were 1790, they're ignoring Latinos completely.

I grew up where racism was in different shades of brown. Where people with Sammy Sosa's complexion thought Haitians were too black, and openly chided them for it.

In Central America? Look too "Indio" (obvious Inca/Mayan features) and you're quickly marginalized. Asia? Let's just say Filipinos, and Indonesians are essentially treated as slave labor throughout much of SE Asia. Chinese, South Koreans and to a lesser extent Japanese (they focus mostly on Chinese and Korean) are quite open about their disdain for the "Filipino" look.

All of that is already in the US. I'm curious to watch the first lawsuit over equal opportunity employment by the first white guy who heads uptown in New York and applies at a thriving Dominican livery company.....or to Koreatown to become a waiter at a high end Bulgogi restaurant.

Yep, it is going to be an interesting dynamic alright...

[nate33]

I would rather we take over Canada and Mexico than have a bunch of small countries warring with each other - as has typically happened when small countries are adjacent to each other.

Please.

Name me one instance where two free market democracies went to war with each other.

CSA vs. USA? Is this gonna be on the test?

There wouldn't have been a war if the USA didn't attack them specifically for the act of seceding. Obviously, if there was an agreement to break up the nation into sub-nations, the agreement itself take away the incentive for war.

Furthermore, I'd argue that even if there was an animosity-filled secession today like in 1861, there still wouldn't be a war. That was 150 years ago when we were a harder people. There's no chance you could rally a nation to go to war against other former Americans. The Army would mutiny first.

[nate33]

Now, if you are talking greater states rights - count me in...

Yeah, but I don't see us putting that genie back in the bottle. The Constitution has been too distorted by the Supreme Court. Half the people in the country really do believe it's a "living breathing document", even though that that's the opposite of a constitution.

[Zonkerbl]

Now, if you are talking greater states rights - count me in...

Yeah, but I don't see us putting that genie back in the bottle. The Constitution has been too distorted by the Supreme Court. Half the people in the country really do believe it's a "living breathing document", even though that that's the opposite of a constitution.

That's silly. The Constitution has to be a living document. There are new things today that had no meaning when the Constitution was written. There are new IP issues that weren't even conceived of in the Constitution.

The Constitution is a set of guidelines that we apply as best we can to the issues facing us today. Where the Constitution provides no guidance the court tries to fills the gap with common sense. That common sense is by definition the common sense of the current context, not the 1776 one.

When we don't like that common sense interpretation we amend the Constitution.

Of course the Constitution is a living document. It wouldn't function otherwise.

Just like the Bible, man. God couldn't have meant for the Bible to be the whole truth about the universe because the people he was dictating it to at the time had no idea what, for example, quantum physics was. It's literally impossible for the Bible to contain the whole truth of the universe and the same is true for the Constitution. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Constitution written in the 18th century to have an answer for every new thing that our innovative, capitalist country can come up with. It has to adapt to the modern situation.

Strict constitutionalists are flat out wrong about how the Constitution works. They are just as wrong about the Constitution as creationists are about science.

[nate33]

Now, if you are talking greater states rights - count me in...

Yeah, but I don't see us putting that genie back in the bottle. The Constitution has been too distorted by the Supreme Court. Half the people in the country really do believe it's a "living breathing document", even though that that's the opposite of a constitution.

That's silly. The Constitution has to be a living document. There are new things today that had no meaning when the Constitution was written. There are new IP issues that weren't even conceived of in the Constitution.

The Constitution is a set of guidelines that we apply as best we can to the issues facing us today. Where the Constitution provides no guidance the court tries to fills the gap with common sense. That common sense is by definition the common sense of the current context, not the 1776 one.

When we don't like that common sense interpretation we amend the Constitution.

Of course the Constitution is a living document. It wouldn't function otherwise.

Just like the Bible, man. God couldn't have meant for the Bible to be the whole truth about the universe because the people he was dictating it to at the time had no idea what, for example, quantum physics was. It's literally impossible for the Bible to contain the whole truth of the universe and the same is true for the Constitution. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Constitution to have an answer for every new thing that our innovative, capitalist country can come up with. It has to adapt to the modern situation.

Strict constitutionalists are flat out wrong about how the Constitution works. They are just as wrong about the Constitution as creationists are about science.

Common sense would mean that the 10th Amendment was put in there for a reason. You wouldn't put in a 10th Amendment and then proceed to totally ignore it due to an absurdly generous interpretation of the "general welfare clause". Something as simple and accepted as the federal funding of interstate highways is clearly unconstitutional.

[dobrojim]

Please.

Name me one instance where two free market democracies went to war with each other.

CSA vs. USA? Is this gonna be on the test?

There wouldn't have been a war if the USA didn't attack them specifically for the act of seceding. Obviously, if there was an agreement to break up the nation into sub-nations, the agreement itself take away the incentive for war.

Furthermore, I'd argue that even if there was an animosity-filled secession today like in 1861, there still wouldn't be a war. That was 150 years ago when we were a harder people. There's no chance you could rally a nation to go to war against other former Americans. The Army would mutiny first.

I'm confused. Most historians point to the attack by SC on Fort Sumter as the single precipitating event,
unless you want to say the election of Lincoln.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, but I don't see us putting that genie back in the bottle. The Constitution has been too distorted by the Supreme Court. Half the people in the country really do believe it's a "living breathing document", even though that that's the opposite of a constitution.

That's silly. The Constitution has to be a living document. There are new things today that had no meaning when the Constitution was written. There are new IP issues that weren't even conceived of in the Constitution.

The Constitution is a set of guidelines that we apply as best we can to the issues facing us today. Where the Constitution provides no guidance the court tries to fills the gap with common sense. That common sense is by definition the common sense of the current context, not the 1776 one.

When we don't like that common sense interpretation we amend the Constitution.

Of course the Constitution is a living document. It wouldn't function otherwise.

Just like the Bible, man. God couldn't have meant for the Bible to be the whole truth about the universe because the people he was dictating it to at the time had no idea what, for example, quantum physics was. It's literally impossible for the Bible to contain the whole truth of the universe and the same is true for the Constitution. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Constitution to have an answer for every new thing that our innovative, capitalist country can come up with. It has to adapt to the modern situation.

Strict constitutionalists are flat out wrong about how the Constitution works. They are just as wrong about the Constitution as creationists are about science.

Common sense would mean that the 10th Amendment was put in there for a reason. You wouldn't put in a 10th Amendment and then proceed to totally ignore it due to an absurdly generous interpretation of the "general welfare clause". Something as simple and accepted as the federal funding of interstate highways is clearly unconstitutional.

Federal funding of interstate highways unconstitutional? You've lost me.

I've heard your argument about how none of the case law applies to illegal aliens, I concede you at least have a logically coherent argument. But anyway that's not "strict constitutionalism," that's applying the guidelines of the Constitution to a brand new idea, "illegal aliens." There was no such thing in 1787. Everybody who made it into the U.S. was automatically legal. There were no restrictions. We were actually desperately labor-poor in many parts of the country. It's why our ag technology is so capital-intensive and is not particularly suited to labor-surplus developing countries. Economics history! Woot!

But last I recall the Federal government is permitted to regulate interstate commerce, and, you know, the interstate highway system has the word "interstate," you know, in it.

[nate33]

Regulating interstate commerce means to set up the rules and standards for trade and safety. It doesn't mean the freaking building of the infrastructure at taxpayer expense.

[nate33]

I would rather we take over Canada and Mexico than have a bunch of small countries warring with each other - as has typically happened when small countries are adjacent to each other.

Please.

Name me one instance where two free market democracies went to war with each other.

When these countries split off - we will know they are going to stay free market democracies? Will we want walls along the borders to keep folks out? Just saying - I would rather have one country than many little countries. Now, if you are talking greater states rights - count me in...

I don't understand the problem. In my scenario, there wouldn't be constant wars and fighting. New England's relationship with The Midwest would be roughly analogous to our relationship with Canada.

[dckingsfan]

Please.

Name me one instance where two free market democracies went to war with each other.

When these countries split off - we will know they are going to stay free market democracies? Will we want walls along the borders to keep folks out? Just saying - I would rather have one country than many little countries. Now, if you are talking greater states rights - count me in...

I don't understand the problem. In my scenario, there wouldn't be constant wars and fighting. New England's relationship with The Midwest would be roughly analogous to our relationship with Canada.

I hear what you are saying. You envision states like the US and their relationship to Canada. I see a loose federation like the Euro countries (which I see as somewhat dysfunctional).

I just think the relationship between the states are better than our relationship to Canada and Mexico. I think they current arrangement is better than breaking up the country into smaller states. I do see the potential of wars (even if they are just trade/cyber wars).

Agree to disagree on this one...

[montestewart]

Please.

Name me one instance where two free market democracies went to war with each other.

CSA vs. USA? Is this gonna be on the test?

There wouldn't have been a war if the USA didn't attack them specifically for the act of seceding. Obviously, if there was an agreement to break up the nation into sub-nations, the agreement itself take away the incentive for war.

Furthermore, I'd argue that even if there was an animosity-filled secession today like in 1861, there still wouldn't be a war. That was 150 years ago when we were a harder people. There's no chance you could rally a nation to go to war against other former Americans. The Army would mutiny first.

I'm reading less "false" and more "true, but..." there. Much depends on your definitions for "democratic," "free market economy," and "war," but U.S. history is arguably littered with examples.

[doclinkin]

I'll be really curious to see if and how the Constitution applies to Artificial Intelligences.

[Kanyewest]

I might have to change my user name if Kanye supports Ben Carson.