MAGAThread XVII: All Things NOT Impeachment

[The East Marches II]

Break them with taxes if they do that?

Republicans would never do it. They only care about business profit because they know their rural base will vote for them no matter what.

What an unconstructive answer

[Proctopeo]

How has it failed, exactly?


Pretty sure it was.


All the more reason to maintain the electoral college.

Yeah how awful the person with the most votes win. Dirt and cattle matter more

How dare they be forced to appeal to multiple different kinds of people from all across the country.

How has it failed, exactly?


Pretty sure it was.


All the more reason to maintain the electoral college.

>tfw a libertarian is arguing for more big government

The EC isn't really "big government"; I fail to see how it is.

Think it through. Some times the majority is wrong.

Sure it didn’t work for H. It’s not why she lost.

H ran a crappy campaign. Blue wall, going to be the first female president. Even Biden commented she doesn’t know why she was running.

Even the Republicans don’t want the EC gone. It would be better for my State as we have 40 million people. New York has 20 million....

I dont care. You get the most votes you should win. You wouldn't think it was fair if someone got the most votes for statewide office but didnt win because their opponent got more land area would you?

This discussion is likely better suited for the 2020 election thread.

That's not what the EC is.

[Aureumterra]

Assad is the preferable choice in Syria, certainly better than the revolutionaries

At the moment? Yes. At the beginning? Not necessarily. Obama didn't capitalize on the initial protests which were more secular and democratic, and then Islamists moved in to fill the vacuum.

Unfortunately, whenever there’s opposition to a secular government in the Middle East, either Iran or KSA immediately gives the Islamist opposition so much money that any opposition to said secular government is Islamist

And, seeing how the 'Green Army' in Syria has been doing, it seems this will be the failed Arab Spring, Syrian Christians got really lucky with this one

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Moveing this here, the Electoral college's job is to represent the American people. It failed.

How has it failed, exactly?

No that was not its purpose.

Pretty sure it was.

You didnt have the kind of population disparity that we do now.

All the more reason to maintain the electoral college.

The people voted for one person and they didn't follow thru on that.

The system represents we the people not we the land owners.
On that day it failed the people.

[San Lumen]

Yeah how awful the person with the most votes win. Dirt and cattle matter more

How dare they be forced to appeal to multiple different kinds of people from all across the country.

>tfw a libertarian is arguing for more big government

The EC isn't really "big government"; I fail to see how it is.

I dont care. You get the most votes you should win. You wouldn't think it was fair if someone got the most votes for statewide office but didnt win because their opponent got more land area would you?

This discussion is likely better suited for the 2020 election thread.

That's not what the EC is.

land area should not matter more than votes. I still think this conversation belongs in the 2020 thread but that's me

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The only time an EC worked as "intended".

[Nobel Hobos 2]

How dare they be forced to appeal to multiple different kinds of people from all across the country.


The EC isn't really "big government"; I fail to see how it is.


That's not what the EC is.

land area should not matter more than votes. I still think this conversation belongs in the 2020 thread but that's me

Land area has nothing to do with it.
Some of the smallest states by land area have significant population. Wyoming isn't small, and Alaska is huge.

[Fahran]

Escalating the conflict with Iran to no actually useful gain is bad, yes. That's not appeasement.

Iran escalated it by killing Americans and attacking an American embassy in the past few months. We killed the man responsible for coordinating the proxies that carried out those attacks in retaliation. He was one of their more talented and experienced military men and the person who takes his place will likely be less competent. He's also a symbol to the people who have been killing Americans. There was definitely a concrete gain in killing him. Doing nothing as a foreign power kills your people because you don't want them to kill more of your people is the textbook definition of appeasement.

Was this lad some kind of unique genius in the field of funding terrorism? I expect he'll be replaced rather quickly and the terrorism will only increase.

He was one of Iran's most experienced and talented military minds. The replacement will not have the same pedigree or status.

[Farnhamia]

Escalating the conflict with Iran to no actually useful gain is bad, yes. That's not appeasement.

Iran escalated it by killing Americans and attacking an American embassy in the past few months. We killed the man responsible for coordinating the proxies that carried out those attacks in retaliation. He was one of their more talented and experienced military men and the person who takes his place will likely be less competent. He's also a symbol to the people who have been killing Americans. There was definitely a concrete gain in killing him. Doing nothing as a foreign power kills your people because you don't want them to kill more of your people is the textbook definition of appeasement.

Was this lad some kind of unique genius in the field of funding terrorism? I expect he'll be replaced rather quickly and the terrorism will only increase.

He was one of Iran's most experienced and talented military minds. The replacement will not have the same pedigree or status.

Yes, well ...

One day they may name a street after President Trump in Tehran. Why? Because Trump just ordered the assassination of possibly the dumbest man in Iran and the most overrated strategist in the Middle East: Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani.

Think of the miscalculations this guy made. In 2015, the United States and the major European powers agreed to lift virtually all their sanctions on Iran, many dating back to 1979, in return for Iran halting its nuclear weapons program for a mere 15 years, but still maintaining the right to have a peaceful nuclear program. It was a great deal for Iran. Its economy grew by over 12 percent the next year. And what did Suleimani do with that windfall?

He and Iran’s supreme leader launched an aggressive regional imperial project that made Iran and its proxies the de facto controlling power in Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sana. This freaked out U.S. allies in the Sunni Arab world and Israel — and they pressed the Trump administration to respond. Trump himself was eager to tear up any treaty forged by President Obama, so he exited the nuclear deal and imposed oil sanctions on Iran that have now shrunk the Iranian economy by almost 10 percent and sent unemployment over 16 percent.

All that for the pleasure of saying that Tehran can call the shots in Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sana. What exactly was second prize?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Further regarding "small" states (population not area) they aren't all rural Republican.
The 12 states most advantaged by the EC actually favoured Dems:

WY 46
DC 86
VT 26
ND 36
AK 14
RI 16
SD 30
DE 11
NH 0
MN 3
HI 32
NE 26

(Trump/Clinton margin 2016)

WY 46
DC 86
VT 26
ND 36
AK 14
RI 16
SD 30
DE 11
NH 0
MN 3
HI 32
NE 26
WV 42
ID 32
NM 8
NV 2
UT 18
KS 21
AR 27
MS 18
IO 9
CT 14
SC 14
AL 28
MN 2
OK 36
KT 30
OR 11
WA 86
CO 5
LA 20
WI 1
MD 26
TN 26
AZ 4
IN 19
MA 27
MO 19
GA 5
VA 5
NJ 14
NC 4
PA 1
OH 8
IL 17
FL 1
TX 9
NY 23
CA 30

[Kowani]

Yeah how awful the person with the most votes win. Dirt and cattle matter more

How dare they be forced to appeal to multiple different kinds of people from all across the country.

[Mvaprion]

How has it failed, exactly?


Pretty sure it was.


All the more reason to maintain the electoral college.

Yeah how awful the person with the most votes win. Dirt and cattle matter more

It is awful. Dirt and rural areas shouldn’t matter because they don’t have a lot of people. People win elections not land

[Thermodolia]

How dare they be forced to appeal to multiple different kinds of people from all across the country.

That really doesn’t negate what he said

[Uiiop]

That really doesn’t negate what he said

It's not like the previous point negates San's either.

[Fahran]

It is awful. Dirt and rural areas shouldn’t matter because they don’t have a lot of people. People win elections not land

People do win elections. Specifically electors.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It is awful. Dirt and rural areas shouldn’t matter because they don’t have a lot of people. People win elections not land

People do win elections. Specifically electors.

Well providing there's a majority among the electors. Otherwise it goes to the House

What? House members are people too?

[Fahran]

People do win elections. Specifically electors.

Well providing there's a majority among the electors. Otherwise it goes to the House

What? House members are people too?

Some would have us believe they're lizards of some sort. As I grow older, I sympathize more and more with that view.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Well providing there's a majority among the electors. Otherwise it goes to the House

What? House members are people too?

Some would have us believe they're lizards of some sort. As I grow older, I sympathize more and more with that view.

Freshmen, still human
Incumbents, related to lizards
Chairing a committee marks the final metamorphosis, they're 100% lizard by then.

No more ridiculous than the idea that small states are the most rural.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Further regarding "small" states (population not area) they aren't all rural Republican.
The 12 states most advantaged by the EC actually favoured Dems:

WY 46
DC 86
VT 26
ND 36
AK 14
RI 16
SD 30
DE 11
NH 0
MN 3
HI 32
NE 26

(Trump/Clinton margin 2016)

WY 46
DC 86
VT 26
ND 36
AK 14
RI 16
SD 30
DE 11
NH 0
MN 3
HI 32
NE 26
WV 42
ID 32
NM 8
NV 2
UT 18
KS 21
AR 27
MS 18
IO 9
CT 14
SC 14
AL 28
MN 2
OK 36
KT 30
OR 11
WA 86
CO 5
LA 20
WI 1
MD 26
TN 26
AZ 4
IN 19
MA 27
MO 19
GA 5
VA 5
NJ 14
NC 4
PA 1
OH 8
IL 17
FL 1
TX 9
NY 23
CA 30

But wait, it gets worse.

If the electoral college was apportioned strictly by census population, Trump would still have won.
Yes that's what I said.
Assuming states still choose their EC reps Winner-Takes-All, and assuming Clinton and Trump win the same states they did, Trump would have won by 35 million votes (PA FL and WI) which would translate to 62 EC votes.

Rather than whining about the EC which we cannot hope to change, we should be concentrating on the States. Get them either to sign to popular vote compact, or to split the EC reps they do have proportionate to the vote in their state.

[Myrensis]

Iran escalated it by killing Americans and attacking an American embassy in the past few months. We killed the man responsible for coordinating the proxies that carried out those attacks in retaliation. He was one of their more talented and experienced military men and the person who takes his place will likely be less competent. He's also a symbol to the people who have been killing Americans. There was definitely a concrete gain in killing him. Doing nothing as a foreign power kills your people because you don't want them to kill more of your people is the textbook definition of appeasement.


He was one of Iran's most experienced and talented military minds. The replacement will not have the same pedigree or status.

Yes, well ...

One day they may name a street after President Trump in Tehran. Why? Because Trump just ordered the assassination of possibly the dumbest man in Iran and the most overrated strategist in the Middle East: Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani.

Think of the miscalculations this guy made. In 2015, the United States and the major European powers agreed to lift virtually all their sanctions on Iran, many dating back to 1979, in return for Iran halting its nuclear weapons program for a mere 15 years, but still maintaining the right to have a peaceful nuclear program. It was a great deal for Iran. Its economy grew by over 12 percent the next year. And what did Suleimani do with that windfall?

He and Iran’s supreme leader launched an aggressive regional imperial project that made Iran and its proxies the de facto controlling power in Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sana. This freaked out U.S. allies in the Sunni Arab world and Israel — and they pressed the Trump administration to respond. Trump himself was eager to tear up any treaty forged by President Obama, so he exited the nuclear deal and imposed oil sanctions on Iran that have now shrunk the Iranian economy by almost 10 percent and sent unemployment over 16 percent.

All that for the pleasure of saying that Tehran can call the shots in Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sana. What exactly was second prize?

Tearing up the Iran Deal was literally one of Trumps campaign promises, and Republicans have been screeching about it being terribad and illegitimate since before it was actually signed, the idea that he would actually have continued to honor it under any conditions other than Iran capitulating entirely and renaming itself "TrumpJesusFreedomLand" is laughable.

[Fahran]

Tearing up the Iran Deal was literally one of Trumps campaign promises, and Republicans have been screeching about it being terribad and illegitimate since before it was actually signed, the idea that he would actually have continued to honor it under any conditions other than Iran capitulating entirely and renaming itself "TrumpJesusFreedomLand" is laughable.

I also think the article is exaggerating the extent to which Soleimani stumbled in pursuing a proxy war with Saudi Arabia and the United States. He's been winning that proxy war by gradual, unsteady increments over the course of the past few years and the conflict dates to 2003 at the earliest. We changed our policy despite Iranian policy remaining comparably consistent since the outbreak of violence in Yemen and Syria.

[Farnhamia]

Tearing up the Iran Deal was literally one of Trumps campaign promises, and Republicans have been screeching about it being terribad and illegitimate since before it was actually signed, the idea that he would actually have continued to honor it under any conditions other than Iran capitulating entirely and renaming itself "TrumpJesusFreedomLand" is laughable.

I also think the article is exaggerating the extent to which Soleimani stumbled in pursuing a proxy war with Saudi Arabia and the United States. He's been winning that proxy war by gradual, unsteady increments over the course of the past few years and the conflict dates to 2003 at the earliest. We changed our policy despite Iranian policy remaining comparably consistent since the outbreak of violence in Yemen and Syria.

I'm not saying that's the absolute truth but it's an interesting take on a guy who is being touted as a brilliant strategist. I mean, heck, you and I could outwit Trump.

[Fahran]

I'm not saying that's the absolute truth but it's an interesting take on a guy who is being touted as a brilliant strategist. I mean, heck, you and I could outwit Trump.

I appreciate your assessment of my wits.

It's certainly interesting given that it's coming from a notable neocon. I didn't mean to dismiss it outright, of course. It's an interesting counter-narrative from an unlikely source. I just quibble over everything because I'm difficult and stubborn.

[Kowani]

That really doesn’t negate what he said

It’s kinda does. In all of those states, the appeal is to the same demographic group.

[Fahran]

That really doesn’t negate what he said

It’s kinda does. In all of those states, the appeal is to the same demographic group.

Which group is that?