Political Roundtable Part XXV

[dobrojim]

Those don't seem like the numbers of some invincible candidate^

It would be interesting to see the numbers where on a State by State basis. Especially the States that he has to win to get re-elected. That’s the problem with just looking at the polls sometimes, they don’t tell the whole story. Republicans have a built in advantage because of the Electoral College. Just another reason that it has to go.

The Electoral College has to go because it favors one party over the other or because it is inherently unfair?

Because it is inherently unfair by awarding greater value to the votes of voters who live in low population states.

It's quite remarkable to me to when I listen to arguments
supporting the EC that say it protects the minority from
the 'tyranny of the majority' like this is a good thing.
I find that a good test for the validity of an argument
is how well its principles would stand up when reversed.
IOW, shouldn't there be greater concern for protecting
the majority from the tyranny of the minority?

The numbers were discussed some time ago in this thread
about how the total population of the 20 least populous states
is somewhere between 20-25% of the nation's population.
Yet those 40 senators (from those 20 states) can block a
great deal of potential legislation so it's not like low population
states are in that much jeopardy. Then there is the whole issue
of the net federal dollars by state. Hint- low population states
tend to receive more than they contribute IIRC.

To be clear, I'm not for tyranny from either direction but
the majority opinion, in a just world, should tend to carry more weight.

[montestewart]

Been telling you guys TGW is STD's alt account.

Ha!

TGW's a passionate Wizards fan. STD couldn't care less about the Wizards. Hard to credibly fake that difference.

[JWizmentality]

Been telling you guys TGW is STD's alt account.

Ha!

TGW's a passionate Wizards fan. STD couldn't care less about the Wizards. Hard to credibly fake that difference.

I dunno, STD faked being an millionaire playboy dentist.

[gtn130]

Those don't seem like the numbers of some invincible candidate^

It would be interesting to see the numbers where on a State by State basis. Especially the States that he has to win to get re-elected. That’s the problem with just looking at the polls sometimes, they don’t tell the whole story. Republicans have a built in advantage because of the Electoral College. Just another reason that it has to go.

The Electoral College has to go because it favors one party over the other or because it is inherently unfair?

If it favors one party over the other then it's unfair.

[pancakes3]

electoral college requires a constitutional amendment, which is already a non-starter politically speaking, but also invites the question - do you spend your political capital on pushing that amendment through or do you push for:

- balanced budget amendment
- equal rights amendment
- repeal 2nd amendment
- set term limits for congressmen
- an amendment that amends the amendment process
- something else

[dckingsfan]

It would be interesting to see the numbers where on a State by State basis. Especially the States that he has to win to get re-elected. That’s the problem with just looking at the polls sometimes, they don’t tell the whole story. Republicans have a built in advantage because of the Electoral College. Just another reason that it has to go.

The Electoral College has to go because it favors one party over the other or because it is inherently unfair?

If it favors one party over the other then it's unfair.

If you take the party lens away - it should just be about what is fair... I liked Jim's explanation above.

[dobrojim]

electoral college requires a constitutional amendment, which is already a non-starter politically speaking, but also invites the question - do you spend your political capital on pushing that amendment through or do you push for:

- balanced budget amendment
- equal rights amendment
- repeal 2nd amendment
- set term limits for congressmen
- an amendment that amends the amendment process
- something else

Actually you don't need a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the EC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

This has a much greater chance of becoming reality which arguably still might
be not likely but it's somewhere about 2/3rds of the way to becoming law now,
having 189 EC votes of the 270 needed for it to become effective in terms of
obviating the outdated EC.

[dobrojim]

electoral college requires a constitutional amendment, which is already a non-starter politically speaking, but also invites the question - do you spend your political capital on pushing that amendment through or do you push for:

- balanced budget amendment
- equal rights amendment
- repeal 2nd amendment
- set term limits for congressmen
- an amendment that amends the amendment process
- something else

PS

We have not had any amendments recently but as an historical matter,
when they do happen, they tend to happen in bunches.

[Jamaaliver]

And while the humans argue over policy and hypotheticals, the world is literally burning around them:

And most people don't seem to care.

I don't care.

2018




2019:

99.9999% chance humans are causing global warming, and other science-based facts on climate change for Earth Day

Climate change is real and increasingly a part of our daily lives. New research and studies out in just the past six months highlight the latest facts about the human-caused shift to our global weather systems and its effects on our planet.

First among them, there's no longer any question that rising temperatures and increasingly chaotic weather are the work of humanity. There's a 99.9999% chance that humans are the cause of global warming, a February study reported. That means we've reached the "gold standard" for certainty, a statistical measure typically used in particle physics.

Study lead author Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, told Reuters that “the narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong."

Humans burn fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas, which release carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and other gases into the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. CO2 is the greenhouse gas that's most responsible for warming.

Spoiler:

Carbon dioxide up 46%

Increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases being released into the atmosphere by industry, transportation and energy production from burning fossil fuels are enhancing what's known as the planet's natural greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent among all greenhouse gases produced by human activities, attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. A consequence of higher temperatures is the melting of the polar ice caps, which is causing sea levels to rise. The world's oceans have risen about an inch in the past 50 years due to melting glaciers alone, a study published this month in the journal Nature found.

The Earth's glaciers are now losing up to 390 billion tons of ice and snow per year, the study suggests.

Extreme weather events exacerbated in part by climate change killed almost 250 Americans and cost the nation at least $91 billion in 2018, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Unusual warmth in the U.S. West in 2018 contributed to a disastrous wildfire season that killed dozens of people. In monetary terms, western states endured their costliest wildfire season on record: $24 billion in damage.

Hurricanes Michael, resulting in $25 billion damages, and Florence, with $24 billion in costs, were the other two big weather disasters in 2018. “The children alive today, like my daughter who is 12, they’re going to see a dramatic transformation of climate. It’s already underway,” said study lead author Matt Fitzpatrick of the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science.

[dckingsfan]

Never argue climate change with a denialist - it is like arguing someone from The Flat Earth Society (no disrespect Nate). You can't prove something to a high degree of probability - you have to prove to 100%. And science isn't a probability thing... you can have 99% percent of the scientists thinking one thing and then along comes Einstein and you have relativity.

Having said all that - it doesn't matter where the climate change is coming from - its coming. That doesn't seem to be in dispute. Man made vs. natural seems to be the dispute. So?

There are still only 3 things that can be done.

1) CO2 reduction
2) CCUS and other similar technologies
3) Mitigation.

Even the most ardent denialists of global climate change sources generally don't disagree with 2&3. And now that we have crossed the 2/3rds number of Republicans that believe in climate change - this will be a non-issue.

Now we are looking for someone to lead us in this endeavor in the US - it isn't going to be Trump and it isn't going to be the authors of the GND.

[popper]

It would be interesting to see the numbers where on a State by State basis. Especially the States that he has to win to get re-elected. That’s the problem with just looking at the polls sometimes, they don’t tell the whole story. Republicans have a built in advantage because of the Electoral College. Just another reason that it has to go.

The Electoral College has to go because it favors one party over the other or because it is inherently unfair?

Because it is inherently unfair by awarding greater value to the votes of voters who live in low population states.

It's quite remarkable to me to when I listen to arguments
supporting the EC that say it protects the minority from
the 'tyranny of the majority' like this is a good thing.
I find that a good test for the validity of an argument
is how well its principles would stand up when reversed.
IOW, shouldn't there be greater concern for protecting
the majority from the tyranny of the minority?

The numbers were discussed some time ago in this thread
about how the total population of the 20 least populous states
is somewhere between 20-25% of the nation's population.
Yet those 40 senators (from those 20 states) can block a
great deal of potential legislation so it's not like low population
states are in that much jeopardy. Then there is the whole issue
of the net federal dollars by state. Hint- low population states
tend to receive more than they contribute IIRC.

To be clear, I'm not for tyranny from either direction but
the majority opinion, in a just world, should tend to carry more weight.

The states/territories of the US voluntarily entered our Constitutional Republic under a certain set of terms and conditions. What’s unfair about a voluntary union?

One mechanism of the charter allows member states to alter the terms and conditions of the union and out of 33 attempts to do so, 27 have been ratified.

I don’t understand why you think that is unfair? Please explain.

[dobrojim]

It's unfair and violates equal protection under law when the vote of a citizen in WY
is worth more ie has greater consequence, than the vote of a citizen in TX.
There is no justice based reason why voters that live in less dense arbitrarily designated
geographic boundaries should be preferenced over other citizens.

It needs to be changed. The Constitution has always been a (flawed) work in progress
and as such, has mechanisms, or a mechanism, by which it can be changed.

My observation is simply that according to a plain reading of the Constitution,
an amendment isn't the only way to render the flaw of the EC impotent.
See the link in one of my posts just a little further up.

Defenders of the EC seem to largely ignore the perverse effect it has
had on how campaigns are now run. Candidates now can and do and are rewarded
for ignoring about 90% of the states (not 'in play') because they get no marginal utility for
campaigning there. Voters, and as importantly, issues in those states, are to a large degree
ignored. Removing or rendering the EC college moot would make every vote equal
regardless of voting precinct from which it originates.

[popper]

It's unfair and violates equal protection under law when the vote of a citizen in WY
is worth more ie has greater consequence, than the vote of a citizen in TX.
There is no justice based reason why voters that live in less dense arbitrarily designated
geographic boundaries should be preferenced over other citizens.

It needs to be changed. The Constitution has always been a (flawed) work in progress
and as such, has mechanisms, or a mechanism, by which it can be changed.

My observation is simply that according to a plain reading of the Constitution,
an amendment isn't the only way to render the flaw of the EC impotent.
See the link in one of my posts just a little further up.

Defenders of the EC seem to largely ignore the perverse effect it has
had on how campaigns are now run. Candidates now can and do and are rewarded
for ignoring about 90% of the states (not 'in play') because they get no marginal utility for
campaigning there. Voters, and as importantly, issues in those states, are to a large degree
ignored. Removing or rendering the EC college moot would make every vote equal
regardless of voting precinct from which it originates.

I understand your point but the Constitution is set up so that States (through their electors) decide presidential elections. For that reason, it is the states that are equally protected. This is how our federal republic was designed. I understand you and others would like to change the system and of course you are free to try but I wouldn’t discount the wisdom inherent in its conception and the longevity in which it’s endured.

[dobrojim]

Again, getting rid of the EC doesn't require an amendment.
The Constitution explicitly leaves it up to each state to decide how to assign Electors.

[TGW]

I'm here at a internal audit risk conference downtown (my wife made me).

Top 5 organizational risks in 2019:

1. Climate change
2. Natural disasters
3. Weather related disasters
4. Cyber-terrorism
5. Cyber-security or something like that

Food for thought.

[dckingsfan]

Again, getting rid of the EC doesn't require an amendment. The Constitution explicitly leaves it up to each state to decide how to assign Electors.

How does that remove the problem?

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Just to be clear... Bernie is saying that it is okay for hospitals to go chapter. Given the low margin's for hospitals, if your receivables drop by 40% or even half that - you are going to have to restructure.

Assume you are good with the government running our hospital systems?

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I look forward to this man’s presidency in 2020

[FAH1223]

Just to be clear... Bernie is saying that it is okay for hospitals to go chapter. Given the low margin's for hospitals, if your receivables drop by 40% or even half that - you are going to have to restructure.

Assume you are good with the government running our hospital systems?

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

M4All isn't calling for nationalizing hospitals though. There are hospital monopolies and then there are hospitals few and far between as rural America has been devastated.

"Sanders and his allies may have sound, practical reasons for taking a soft (or at least, opaque) line on providers. Doctors and hospitals have powerful lobbies and enjoy much more public trust than private insurance companies or big pharma. Nurses unions and progressive physicians groups are important pillars of the single-payer movement, and some within their ranks might be alienated by calls for “soaking hospitals.” Further, as mentioned above, there’s the difficulty inherent to reducing costs in the hospitals and specialities that are overpaid, without reducing the supply of well-run rural hospitals and much-needed primary-care doctors."

Read on Twitter

There has to be a national rate setting.