Octopus Overlords

I've always held belief that you shouldn't get rid of the filibuster, that laws should require 60 votes in the Senate portion and all that good stuff.

But I've got a question. The bullshit that is the Senate sure is leaning towards D's never getting 60 votes. Maybe 54, maybe 56 but 60 seems impossible. Why not get rid of the filibuster? Sure it'll help Republicans at above 50 but at least then the Dems have a shot between 50 and 56. Dems at 60 seems a pipe dream.

Talk me off this creeping feeling.

tjg_marantz wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:12 am I've always held belief that you shouldn't get rid of the filibuster, that laws should require 60 votes in the Senate portion and all that good stuff.

But I've got a question. The bullshit that is the Senate sure is leaning towards D's never getting 60 votes. Maybe 54, maybe 56 but 60 seems impossible. Why not get rid of the filibuster? Sure it'll help Republicans at above 50 but at least then the Dems have a shot between 50 and 56. Dems at 60 seems a pipe dream.

Talk me off this creeping feeling.

You are correct. In truth structurally it's more of a rural / urban issue, it's just that at the moment Democrats are the party more popular with urban (populous) parts of the country. Every state gets two senators, regardless of population, so Wyoming (population 500k) gets as many votes in the Senate as California (population 10 hojillion). The top 10 states by population have ~ 177 million people, which is about 54% of the population. Which means that 54% of the population gets 20% of the vote in the Senate. The bottom 10 states by population have ~ 10 million people, or a little over 3% of the population, but they get the same 20% of the Senate vote.

Hence the Senate has a democracy problem, and the filibuster only makes it worse, because you can assemble a veto over Senate legislation with only 20.5 states, rather than 25 states. And because you need the Senate for any legislation, it means that you can effectively block any and all legislation with senators representing maybe 15% - 20% of the total population. Which means that the little legislation that makes it through the process (and the judges that make it through the Senate) are going to disproportionately represent the rural, generally reactionary parts of the country.

Getting rid of the filibuster doesn't eliminate this problem, but it makes it a little bit better.

I think the filibuster is going to fall under a Dem President if they have the Senate even at 50+1. One caveat. This may not happen if Biden is President. He has said some things that indicate he wears really, really strong rose colored glasses when it comes to the Senate. He thinks that the Republicans will come to their senses after Trump is gone. Bullshit. Trump will still be out there agitating the whole time and there is a good chance the base will stay with him thinking the election was stolen. Anyway, a non-foolish and rationale Democrat President is going to point at what happened with Obama. They'd be fools not to take their chance to reset some of the damage.

malchior wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:45 am I think the filibuster is going to fall under a Dem President if they have the Senate even at 50+1. One caveat. This may not happen if Biden is President. He has said some things that indicate he wears really, really strong rose colored glasses when it comes to the Senate. He thinks that the Republicans will come to their senses after Trump is gone. Bullshit. Trump will still be out there agitating the whole time and there is a good chance the base will stay with him thinking the election was stolen. Anyway, a non-foolish and rationale Democrat President is going to point at what happened with Obama. They'd be fools not to take their chance to reset some of the damage.

I agree. To me this is the biggest negative for Biden.

Yeah, I don't think the Senate will magically "come to its senses" either after Trump. They have a choke-hold on Democracy right now and I can't imagine they'd somehow like to give up the ridiculous power they apparently wield, unchecked. Lord help us if another Supreme Court Justice Appointment is necessary before this shit-show ends.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:06 pm Yeah, I don't think the Senate will magically "come to its senses" either after Trump. They have a choke-hold on Democracy right now and I can't imagine they'd somehow like to give up the ridiculous power they apparently wield, unchecked. Lord help us if another Supreme Court Justice Appointment is necessary before this shit-show ends.

I'm sure if Biden just asks nicely McConnell would be happy to discuss universal health insurance.

El Guapo wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:06 pm Yeah, I don't think the Senate will magically "come to its senses" either after Trump. They have a choke-hold on Democracy right now and I can't imagine they'd somehow like to give up the ridiculous power they apparently wield, unchecked. Lord help us if another Supreme Court Justice Appointment is necessary before this shit-show ends.

I'm sure if Biden just asks nicely McConnell would be happy to discuss universal health insurance.

If Biden is President I wonder if the good old boy network will kick in and there will be coversation, coffee and cookies? Coffee and conversation with the other Socialists, not too likely.

I hadn't seen Biden's soft take on the Senate but then I wasn't looking for it and he, quite frankly, isn't on my radar as viable for president. Should I be concerned?

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:06 pm Yeah, I don't think the Senate will magically "come to its senses" either after Trump. They have a choke-hold on Democracy right now and I can't imagine they'd somehow like to give up the ridiculous power they apparently wield, unchecked. Lord help us if another Supreme Court Justice Appointment is necessary before this shit-show ends.

This reminds me way too much of the Q-Anon "proof of life" stunt they pulled with Ginsburg earlier this week.

LordMortis wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:40 pm I hadn't seen Biden's soft take on the Senate but then I wasn't looking for it and he, quite frankly, isn't on my radar as viable for president. Should I be concerned?

Biden: If Elected President, I’ll Let Mitch McConnell Block Everything.

Also Biden has a healthy lead in the primary polls, so he's one of the most likely people to be nominated.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:58 pm Also Biden has a healthy lead in the primary polls,

....and I don't know when that happened, so the answer is, yes, I should be concerned...

LordMortis wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:01 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:58 pm Also Biden has a healthy lead in the primary polls,

....and I don't know when that happened, so the answer is, yes, I should be concerned...

Ummmm....since the beginning? He's lead in the polls continuously since he entered the race. And in many polls before entering the race. It's not an insurmountable lead - IIRC he's usually at like 30% - 35%ish, so it's not like he has majority support at this point, but no one else in the field has been doing better than 15% - 25%ish. Biden's probably an underdog vs. "the field", but he probably has the best individual odds of getting nominated.

This is also why it's so baffling when people around here are like "man I wish Biden would go away". I mean, I'd like the Yankees to go away and give up this season, but there's not much reason for them to do so.

Listen, at this point I'll vote for the corpse of Jeffrey Dahmer over Trump. Trot out a candidate and I'll vote for them.

hepcat wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:39 pm Trot out a candidate and I'll vote for them.

It's a one horse race for this hepcat...

*clop clop clop*

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:38 pm

hepcat wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:39 pm Trot out a candidate and I'll vote for them.

It's a one horse race for this hepcat...

*clop clop clop*

Is Mr. Ed a natural born citizen?

Let me get my time machine and I'll go check. Hopefully I won't run into any babies during the trip.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:55 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:38 pm

hepcat wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:39 pm Trot out a candidate and I'll vote for them.

It's a one horse race for this hepcat...

*clop clop clop*

Is Mr. Ed a natural born citizen?

He's Arab(ian).

So does this mean that the Electoral College is just the wild west?

He tried to stop Trump in the electoral college. A court says his ‘faithless’ ballot was legal.

The ballot was pre-filled with Hillary Clinton’s name, but Micheal Baca didn’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton.

The 24-year-old presidential elector in Colorado had a different plan. Weeks earlier, after Donald Trump’s victory in the general election, Baca and a fellow elector began a movement they called “Hamilton Electors,” a long-shot bid to stop Trump from winning the presidency. The idea was to persuade enough members of the electoral college — the body of 538 members who vote for president — to instead cast ballots for Republicans such as former Ohio governor John Kasich, depriving Trump of just enough electoral votes required to become president.

So Baca scribbled Clinton’s name off the ballot. He wrote in Kasich — prompting the state to nullify his vote. And leading Baca to sue.

Now, for apparently the first time, a federal appeals court has upheld the right of “faithless electors” to vote with their conscience — a ruling that throws into question states’ winner-take-all election systems that bind electors to vote for the state’s popular vote winner, attorneys on Baca’s case said. In a 125-page split opinion Tuesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Colorado’s decision to nullify Baca’s vote and remove him as an elector was unconstitutional.

If the elector can just vote however they please, what is even the point of the election?

Also problematic is that this endangers the National Popular Vote compact - the effort to get 270 EV worth of states to commit their delegates to vote for the popular vote winner. If this ruling holds, then presumably those states have no capacity to force their electors to vote with the national popular vote winner.

Good move! This makes bribery and blackmail so much easier when you know you can get your results from one person.

I want to go to Electoral College.

I want to go to War College.

hepcat wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:53 pm Good move! This makes bribery and blackmail so much easier when you know you can get your results from one person.

Pfff. Good luck finding someone corrupt in Florida.

FWIW, this means there is a split between circuits as the one with CA, WA, and OR decided the other way. I'm not sure how i feel about this SC deciding the case, but it seems likely they will.

stessier wrote:FWIW, this means there is a split between circuits as the one with CA, WA, and OR decided the other way. I'm not sure how i feel about this SC deciding the case, but it seems likely they will.

They will and you know how they will.

David Koch has passed away.

pr0ner wrote:David Koch has passed away.

He certainly has not left the world a better place after his passing.

tjg_marantz wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:24 am

stessier wrote:FWIW, this means there is a split between circuits as the one with CA, WA, and OR decided the other way. I'm not sure how i feel about this SC deciding the case, but it seems likely they will.

They will and you know how they will.

Well, it's not totally obvious how the Supreme Court would rule on this, I think. Constitutionally (without having read the 10th circuit's opinion on this) I would guess that there is a solid constitutional argument that states can't restrict how electors vote - the whole original design of the Electoral College was that people would elect the electors, and then the electors would all use their personal judgment in picking the President.

Politically, the Electoral College mirroring the plurality vote of each state was essential to Trump getting elected in 2016, of course. There's some disagreement, but I think the general expectation is that the electoral college is more likely to help Trump than to hurt him in 2020, if it makes a difference. So if the SCOTUS wanted to issue the most pro-Trump ruling, it would probably reverse the 10th Circuit's opinion. Also worth noting that the elector in question was trying to organize an effort to deny Trump the presidency.

If, on the other hand, it wanted to issue the most pro-Republican ruling, it's totally unclear, because whether the electoral college helps or hurts democratic vs. Republican candidates can vary from year to year (538 has written that it had a pro-Obama lean in 2012, though it ultimately didn't matter).

El Guapo wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:24 am

- the whole original design of the Electoral College was that people would elect the electors, and then the electors would all use their personal judgment in picking the President.

Originally that the State legislatures would select the electors in many cases. That's still "the people" I suppose, but in a much less direct way.

It's been kind of a clusterfuck since the beginning it seems like. I'd love to go back to giving them each 2 votes though.

A Trump/HRClinton would have been reality TV to end all reality TV.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:24 am

tjg_marantz wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:24 am

stessier wrote:FWIW, this means there is a split between circuits as the one with CA, WA, and OR decided the other way. I'm not sure how i feel about this SC deciding the case, but it seems likely they will.

They will and you know how they will.

Well, it's not totally obvious how the Supreme Court would rule on this, I think. Constitutionally (without having read the 10th circuit's opinion on this) I would guess that there is a solid constitutional argument that states can't restrict how electors vote - the whole original design of the Electoral College was that people would elect the electors, and then the electors would all use their personal judgment in picking the President.

I skimmed it and this is the gist of it. Basically, if the States can decide the outcome of the ballot...why was the role created independent of the state itself? They relied on the fact that the states aren't given the express power to determine the outcome by any text in the Constitution or amendments. I'm boiling down like 30 pages of Constitutional and Federalist paper discussion but that was essentially the 'big picture' point they were making.

An aside, the dissent in the case was entirely around mootness. They didn't agree or disagree with the merits. They just said there was no relief available to the petitioner.

I have to put this here as I don't know her political affiliation (though I can probably guess), but she is running for a local government seat. Also, try to remember it's 2019 and not 1950 when you read it:

A Michigan city council candidate shocked a public forum when she said she wants to keep "Marysville a white community as much as possible."

After the forum, Cramer told the newspaper that she's not "against blacks" but believes married couples "need to be the same race."

"As long as, how can I put this? What Kathy Hayman doesn't know is that her family is in the wrong," she said. "(A) husband and wife need to be the same race. Same thing with kids. That's how it's been from the beginning of, how can I say, when God created the heaven and the earth. He created Adam and Eve at the same time. But as far as me being against blacks, no I'm not."

And to double down:

The candidate further went on to state that she would not like "foreign born" people to settle in Marysville.

I am conflicted. I don't have to wonder why people feel free to open their mouths and say the evil, vile shit that is in their hearts. However, I do have to worry if they won't get more support for those views nowadays.

$iljanus wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:22 am

pr0ner wrote:David Koch has passed away.

He certainly has not left the world a better place after his passing.

Very true.

malchior wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:52 am I am conflicted. I don't have to wonder why people feel free to open their mouths and say the evil, vile shit that is in their hearts. However, I do have to worry if they won't get more support for those views nowadays.

Exactly. The idea that she's comfortable enough to run for political office saying those things is more of an indictment of the world we're living in now than of her. She's clearly always been a garbage person, but to now think her views are mainstream enough that she can run an election platform on them in local office? Good grief.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:46 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:52 am I am conflicted. I don't have to wonder why people feel free to open their mouths and say the evil, vile shit that is in their hearts. However, I do have to worry if they won't get more support for those views nowadays.

Exactly. The idea that she's comfortable enough to run for political office saying those things is more of an indictment of the world we're living in now than of her. She's clearly always been a garbage person, but to now think her views are mainstream enough that she can run an election platform on them in local office? Good grief.

Honestly, I think it's less that (though that's probably a factor), and more that the national media (like CBS) is more willing to cover racist / bonkers shit in local city council races. Maybe five years ago this would've been covered in local and maybe a couple state papers and that's about it.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:46 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:52 am I am conflicted. I don't have to wonder why people feel free to open their mouths and say the evil, vile shit that is in their hearts. However, I do have to worry if they won't get more support for those views nowadays.

Exactly. The idea that she's comfortable enough to run for political office saying those things is more of an indictment of the world we're living in now than of her. She's clearly always been a garbage person, but to now think her views are mainstream enough that she can run an election platform on them in local office? Good grief.

A few things that might be of consolation.

It was a public forum for 5 candidates seeking 3 spots on a small City council.

I don't believe there was any deep vetting of candidates.

Other candidates roundly criticized her remarks and had a similar answer to the same question.

She's an old. Not like she's beginning a long career in politics.




At a time when we have the POTUS and US Justice Department dog whistling support for white nationalist extremism, this is almost quaint.

pr0ner wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:35 am David Koch has passed away.

One down, so many more to go.

gilraen wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:05 pm

pr0ner wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:35 am David Koch has passed away.

One down, so many more to go.

Did they bury him with his money?

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:09 pm

gilraen wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:05 pm

pr0ner wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:35 am David Koch has passed away.

One down, so many more to go.

Did they bury him with his money?

You have to build his funeral pyre with it to ensure one last F-U to the planet.

Been rewatching The Wire, and this clip gave me a lulz.