MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[Telconi]

I'm really getting tired of this meme the Right keeps rehashing that the fact that we're not a Direct Democracy means that we aren't any type of Democracy at all.

It makes sense if you accept they hate the notion of democracy.

Unrestricted democracy.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It makes sense if you accept they hate the notion of democracy.

I do hate the idea of people in cities being able to dictate things to the rural minority with virtual impunity, yes.

The Tories said the same things before Old Sarum was stripped of its 2 members of parliament representing exactly nobody actually living in Old Sarum.

[Telconi]

I do hate the idea of people in cities being able to dictate things to the rural minority with virtual impunity, yes.

The Tories said the same things before Old Sarum was stripped of its 2 members of parliament representing exactly nobody actually living in Old Sarum.

Good for the Tories.

[Gran Virginia]

To democrats, this is unfair because it means 100 people were out voted by 50 due to geography.

Or, if I were to be as uncharitable as you, we could say that to democrats, this is unfair because they hate federalism and want America to be a unitary state that they can dominate.

[Gran Virginia]

I do hate the idea of people in cities being able to dictate things to the rural minority with virtual impunity, yes.

The Tories said the same things before Old Sarum was stripped of its 2 members of parliament representing exactly nobody actually living in Old Sarum.

I'm no fan of gerrymandering.

[The Black Forrest]

It makes sense if you accept they hate the notion of democracy.

I do hate the idea of people in cities being able to dictate things to the rural minority with virtual impunity, yes.

*shrugs* move to the city.

[Tarsonis]

Because then you ignore half the country...

That happens anyway. The EC means the entire election is decided in about 10 states at best. If you're Californian or Texan, you may as well not bother.

No, partisan stronghold if means swing states affect the outcome. That’s not the same though

[Tarsonis]

But why does that matter if everyone votes?

That's the key dispute. The EC gives voters in small states a more important vote than those in large states. (Most) democrats disagree with this because it underrepresents the people large states (which are more likely democrat) while (most) republicans argue this is good because it 'protects' the small states.

Democrats view it as undemocratic because it doesn't really represent the people's choice while republicans argue America isn't a democracy so who cares?

The problem is republicans would say it is good even if they lost, and democrats would say its good only if they were winning. Democrats don’t give a damn about fairness, they only care that they didn’t win.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

That's the key dispute. The EC gives voters in small states a more important vote than those in large states. (Most) democrats disagree with this because it underrepresents the people large states (which are more likely democrat) while (most) republicans argue this is good because it 'protects' the small states.

Democrats view it as undemocratic because it doesn't really represent the people's choice while republicans argue America isn't a democracy so who cares?

The problem is republicans would say it is good even if they lost, and democrats would say its good only if they were winning. Democrats don’t give a damn about fairness, they only care that they didn’t win.

These hypotheticals are only true for your idea of what democrats and republicans are. How is a system that gives more votes to less people fair?

[Telconi]

The problem is republicans would say it is good even if they lost, and democrats would say its good only if they were winning. Democrats don’t give a damn about fairness, they only care that they didn’t win.

These hypotheticals are only true for your idea of what democrats and republicans are. How is a system that gives more votes to less people fair?

It maintains a competitive split.

[Tarsonis]

The problem is republicans would say it is good even if they lost, and democrats would say its good only if they were winning. Democrats don’t give a damn about fairness, they only care that they didn’t win.

These hypotheticals are only true for your idea of what democrats and republicans are. How is a system that gives more votes to less people fair?

Define fair

[Bombadil]

“I take full responsibility for each act that I pled guilty to,” Cohen told the judge. “The personal ones to me and those involving the president of the United States of America …

“It was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds.”


Don Trumpeone's consigliere goes down, and we've yet to know the extent of those dirty deeds that meant Mueller asked for leniency in his sentencing given he gave up so much..

[Tarsonis]

“I take full responsibility for each act that I pled guilty to,” Cohen told the judge. “The personal ones to me and those involving the president of the United States of America …

“It was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds.”


Don Trumpeone's consigliere goes down, and we've yet to know the extent of those dirty deeds that meant Mueller asked for leniency in his sentencing given he gave up so much..

I’ll admit I was oppossed to the investigation initially. I don’t like the idea open ended investigations. However it seems the investigation was warranted, so I’ll concede that. But I don’t think it’s going to do anything. I see an ongoing investigation that lasts until trumps out of office. But we’ll see what happens with the new congress

[Major-Tom]

“I take full responsibility for each act that I pled guilty to,” Cohen told the judge. “The personal ones to me and those involving the president of the United States of America …

“It was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds.”


Don Trumpeone's consigliere goes down, and we've yet to know the extent of those dirty deeds that meant Mueller asked for leniency in his sentencing given he gave up so much..

I’ll admit I was oppossed to the investigation initially. I don’t like the idea open ended investigations. However it seems the investigation was warranted, so I’ll concede that. But I don’t think it’s going to do anything. I see an ongoing investigation that lasts until trumps out of office. But we’ll see what happens with the new congress

Worst, I mean, worst case scenario for Trump is the House votes for the articles of impeachment with a simple majority (similar enough to what happened with Clinton), while the Senate shoots down actual impeachment, allowing Trump to remain President. Perhaps a larger number of people would reconsider their support for Trump, but realistically, his base wouldn't shrink all too much.

[Telconi]

I’ll admit I was oppossed to the investigation initially. I don’t like the idea open ended investigations. However it seems the investigation was warranted, so I’ll concede that. But I don’t think it’s going to do anything. I see an ongoing investigation that lasts until trumps out of office. But we’ll see what happens with the new congress

Worst, I mean, worst case scenario for Trump is the House votes for the articles of impeachment with a simple majority (similar enough to what happened with Clinton), while the Senate shoots down actual impeachment, allowing Trump to remain President. Perhaps a larger number of people would reconsider their support for Trump, but realistically, his base wouldn't shrink all too much.

Clinton gained popularity during his impeachment proceedings, maybe Trump would too...

[Cannot think of a name]

I’ll admit I was oppossed to the investigation initially. I don’t like the idea open ended investigations. However it seems the investigation was warranted, so I’ll concede that. But I don’t think it’s going to do anything. I see an ongoing investigation that lasts until trumps out of office. But we’ll see what happens with the new congress

Worst, I mean, worst case scenario for Trump is the House votes for the articles of impeachment with a simple majority (similar enough to what happened with Clinton), while the Senate shoots down actual impeachment, allowing Trump to remain President. Perhaps a larger number of people would reconsider their support for Trump, but realistically, his base wouldn't shrink all too much.

They've been fully inoculated. Bad news is fake news, reacting to his actual wrongdoings is derangement, lamenting the erosion of protections for citizens and institutions is salt for the salt mines. Nothing can get through. Which is not to say that this shouldn't be tested all the way up until he's replaced either through removal or losing in 2020.

Oh goddammit. I just realized the perfect Hilary slogan for 2020...Hindsight is 2020. Can not be the first person to think of that. I'm not even going to google, that has to have been done a million times by now...

Okay, I looked. I was right, but it's Bernie. Makes sense.

[Ifreann]

Worst, I mean, worst case scenario for Trump is the House votes for the articles of impeachment with a simple majority (similar enough to what happened with Clinton), while the Senate shoots down actual impeachment, allowing Trump to remain President. Perhaps a larger number of people would reconsider their support for Trump, but realistically, his base wouldn't shrink all too much.

They've been fully inoculated. Bad news is fake news, reacting to his actual wrongdoings is derangement, lamenting the erosion of protections for citizens and institutions is salt for the salt mines. Nothing can get through. Which is not to say that this shouldn't be tested all the way up until he's replaced either through removal or losing in 2020.

Oh goddammit. I just realized the perfect Hilary slogan for 2020...Hindsight is 2020. Can not be the first person to think of that. I'm not even going to google, that has to have been done a million times by now...

Okay, I looked. I was right, but it's Bernie. Makes sense.

Are there any politicians called Hind and Sight?

[Bombadil]

I’ll admit I was oppossed to the investigation initially. I don’t like the idea open ended investigations. However it seems the investigation was warranted, so I’ll concede that. But I don’t think it’s going to do anything. I see an ongoing investigation that lasts until trumps out of office. But we’ll see what happens with the new congress

Worst, I mean, worst case scenario for Trump is the House votes for the articles of impeachment with a simple majority (similar enough to what happened with Clinton), while the Senate shoots down actual impeachment, allowing Trump to remain President. Perhaps a larger number of people would reconsider their support for Trump, but realistically, his base wouldn't shrink all too much.

I don't know about that, simply he has so many skeletons in the closet and so little goodwill even among senior Republicans that I could see him going down, possibly unlikely but I could see it.

I check FOX every day just to see what they're covering and even the comments under articles are.. well they far less rabidly pro-Trump than before and starting to call out columnists on their views.

They were being called out yesterday for having 3 columns on why Trump isn't guilty for these payments and all three columnists were consultants on Trump election PACS and people noticed and made the link of Trump always paying to protect his image.

I think the tide is in a turn.

[Valrifell]

I’ll admit I was oppossed to the investigation initially. I don’t like the idea open ended investigations. However it seems the investigation was warranted, so I’ll concede that. But I don’t think it’s going to do anything. I see an ongoing investigation that lasts until trumps out of office. But we’ll see what happens with the new congress

Worst, I mean, worst case scenario for Trump is the House votes for the articles of impeachment with a simple majority (similar enough to what happened with Clinton), while the Senate shoots down actual impeachment, allowing Trump to remain President. Perhaps a larger number of people would reconsider their support for Trump, but realistically, his base wouldn't shrink all too much.

If the investigation into Trump finds serious wrongdoing in his administration and a strong connection to him, that could sink his presidency and hope for re-election come 2020. He'd be like Nixon, except already disastrously unpopular before he was seriously accused of doing anything.

Senate Republicans would literally have to be braindead to stand by that kind of mess.

[Tarsonis]

Worst, I mean, worst case scenario for Trump is the House votes for the articles of impeachment with a simple majority (similar enough to what happened with Clinton), while the Senate shoots down actual impeachment, allowing Trump to remain President. Perhaps a larger number of people would reconsider their support for Trump, but realistically, his base wouldn't shrink all too much.

I don't know about that, simply he has so many skeletons in the closet and so little goodwill even among senior Republicans that I could see him going down, possibly unlikely but I could see it.

I check FOX every day just to see what they're covering and even the comments under articles are.. well they far less rabidly pro-Trump than before and starting to call out columnists on their views.

They were being called out yesterday for having 3 columns on why Trump isn't guilty for these payments and all three columnists were consultants on Trump election PACS and people noticed and made the link of Trump always paying to protect his image.

I think the tide is in a turn.

In a less hyperpartisan age, I could see republicans primarying trump. But in this post tea party word...doubtful.

[The Black Forrest]

Worst, I mean, worst case scenario for Trump is the House votes for the articles of impeachment with a simple majority (similar enough to what happened with Clinton), while the Senate shoots down actual impeachment, allowing Trump to remain President. Perhaps a larger number of people would reconsider their support for Trump, but realistically, his base wouldn't shrink all too much.

Clinton gained popularity during his impeachment proceedings, maybe Trump would too...

Probably not. He will have his established base who believe in the phrase "fake news"

Ol' Slick Willy had that silver tongue. donnie just can't pull that off.

[Valrifell]

I don't know about that, simply he has so many skeletons in the closet and so little goodwill even among senior Republicans that I could see him going down, possibly unlikely but I could see it.

I check FOX every day just to see what they're covering and even the comments under articles are.. well they far less rabidly pro-Trump than before and starting to call out columnists on their views.

They were being called out yesterday for having 3 columns on why Trump isn't guilty for these payments and all three columnists were consultants on Trump election PACS and people noticed and made the link of Trump always paying to protect his image.

I think the tide is in a turn.

In a less hyperpartisan age, I could see republicans primarying trump. But in this post tea party word...doubtful.

I'd like to remind that, even in this day and age, it's very difficult to win on a base solely comprised of your most diehard voters. Didn't the 2018 elections kind of prove that with the House?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

These hypotheticals are only true for your idea of what democrats and republicans are. How is a system that gives more votes to less people fair?

It maintains a competitive split.

Any kind of voting maintains a competitive split. If you give one vote to, say, a socialist at a street corner, and one vote to the rest of the US, you will have a competitive split. It won’t look like the split there is today, of course, but there will always be two opposing parties. If you adhere more to the one person, one vote principle, politics will slide a bit, but it will settle into a new two-party opposition in no-time. Even in communist countries there were huge ideological differences between the different schools of socialism. Not to say that it desirable, but you will always have a competitive split. Just with different ideologies.

The problem is that the Republicans get way more power not because they have more popular support, but just because the electoral mechanics favour them. The argument that is made about representation of the rural areas can be made about any minority, and you will see how artificial it is. Jews, for example, should get more representation in the electoral college because otherwise the Gentiles will decide national politics. Suddenly, such a split doesn’t seem equitable.

[Telconi]

In a less hyperpartisan age, I could see republicans primarying trump. But in this post tea party word...doubtful.

I'd like to remind that, even in this day and age, it's very difficult to win on a base solely comprised of your most diehard voters. Didn't the 2018 elections kind of prove that with the House?

That's the point though, you don't have to be a diehard supporter to gravitate towards him of you think the impeachment is a partisan attack.

[Cannot think of a name]

They've been fully inoculated. Bad news is fake news, reacting to his actual wrongdoings is derangement, lamenting the erosion of protections for citizens and institutions is salt for the salt mines. Nothing can get through. Which is not to say that this shouldn't be tested all the way up until he's replaced either through removal or losing in 2020.

Oh goddammit. I just realized the perfect Hilary slogan for 2020...Hindsight is 2020. Can not be the first person to think of that. I'm not even going to google, that has to have been done a million times by now...

Okay, I looked. I was right, but it's Bernie. Makes sense.

Are there any politicians called Hind and Sight?

We should find them, they'd win in a landslide.