2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

[San Lumen]

What if there's a way, perhaps some sort of system, where as we have TWO houses of the legislature, and a hybrid election of the executive, that allows both sides to have a say?

By a hybrid election of the executive I assume you mean voting for president/vice president or governor/lt. governor separately instead of using the ticket system?

Some states do elect the governor and lt governor separately. Washington, Delaware and Missouri do that as well as others. They will be electing statewide officers next year.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Or maybe we could just elect based on who gets the most votes and not rig the election?

That sounds terrible.

Why, because you'll lose?

[Tarsonis]

But it the possibility exists. Hillary Clinton would have won in a monumental landslide if she had paid just a little bit attention to the issues concerning the rust belt. But she didn't and here we are.

It wouldn't have been a landslide, really. And the issues surrounding her loss are a smidge more complicated than "she's dumb lol and didn't try and help labor or working men"

If she had reeled in the votes needed to pull those states, she'd have won by far more than just 3 million votes, and she'd have an electoral landslide. She wins 302 to 236

[Tarsonis]

That sounds terrible.

Why, because you'll lose?

Or because tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?

[Tarsonis]

Well the democrats should then ask themselves why they allowed their politics to get so polarized and decisive that they can't make inroads on any of those counties.

Howard Dean stopped being the DNC Chair and the Tea Party made a killing pandering to the """economic anxieties""" under Obama.

And the DNC embraced the identitarian politics, courting minorities and lgbt vote slandering all republicans as racist/sexist/homophobes/ etc.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Why, because you'll lose?

Or because tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?

Judging from their other recent posts, that's probably not the reason, but I don't want to restart this debate. If you do, then I certainly will, but I'd rather deal with the discussion at hand instead of resurrecting a dead argument.

[Valrifell]

Howard Dean stopped being the DNC Chair and the Tea Party made a killing pandering to the """economic anxieties""" under Obama.

And the DNC embraced the identitarian politics, courting minorities and lgbt vote slandering all republicans as racist/sexist/homophobes/ etc.

Translated:

"The DNC started giving more of a shit about minorities and for some reason labor and minoritiy interests are an either-or proposition"

[Valrifell]

It wouldn't have been a landslide, really. And the issues surrounding her loss are a smidge more complicated than "she's dumb lol and didn't try and help labor or working men"

If she had reeled in the votes needed to pull those states, she'd have won by far more than just 3 million votes, and she'd have an electoral landslide. She wins 302 to 236

Still ignoring the fact that other factors were in play, including the re-litigation of the email scandal at the end of the campaign

[Tarsonis]

Or because tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?

Judging from their other recent posts, that's probably not the reason, but I don't want to restart this debate. If you do, then I certainly will, but I'd rather deal with the discussion at hand instead of resurrecting a dead argument.

I really don't, but Lumen won't drop it.

[Valrifell]

Judging from their other recent posts, that's probably not the reason, but I don't want to restart this debate. If you do, then I certainly will, but I'd rather deal with the discussion at hand instead of resurrecting a dead argument.

I really don't, but Lumen won't drop it.

Replying is as much a choice, but not replying means the Democrats win.

[Tarsonis]

If she had reeled in the votes needed to pull those states, she'd have won by far more than just 3 million votes, and she'd have an electoral landslide. She wins 302 to 236

Still ignoring the fact that other factors were in play, including the re-litigation of the email scandal at the end of the campaign

There's a good way to avoid being investigated for breaking the law: don't break the law.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Judging from their other recent posts, that's probably not the reason, but I don't want to restart this debate. If you do, then I certainly will, but I'd rather deal with the discussion at hand instead of resurrecting a dead argument.

I really don't, but Lumen won't drop it.

You know, if the discussion has devolved into the two of you repeating the same posts over and over again, you can always ignore them...

[Valrifell]

Still ignoring the fact that other factors were in play, including the re-litigation of the email scandal at the end of the campaign

There's a good way to avoid being investigated for breaking the law: don't break the law.

I thought you hated this mindset, or is that only when Trump ignores subpoenas?

[Tarsonis]

I really don't, but Lumen won't drop it.

Replying is as much a choice, but not replying means the Democrats win.

Not Democrats, just Lumen. I asked him three times to drop it, but he refuses to call it a draw.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Still ignoring the fact that other factors were in play, including the re-litigation of the email scandal at the end of the campaign

There's a good way to avoid being investigated for breaking the law: don't break the law.

The investigations repeatedly concluded that she didn't break the law, so I'm not sure what you're basing this on.

[Tarsonis]

There's a good way to avoid being investigated for breaking the law: don't break the law.

The investigations repeatedly concluded that she didn't break the law, so I'm not sure what you're basing this on.

No they concluded that she didn't mean to break the law. Which for anybody with the last name that's not Trump or Clinton, that's total whoreshit.

[Tarsonis]

And the DNC embraced the identitarian politics, courting minorities and lgbt vote slandering all republicans as racist/sexist/homophobes/ etc.

Translated:

"The DNC started giving more of a shit about minorities and for some reason labor and minoritiy interests are an either-or proposition"

Nope. I said what I said, no translation needed.

[Ifreann]

That's kind of why I'm not saying that people should have authority based on taxes paid, but rather saying that we shouldn't let small sectors of the population who contribute very little compared to urban centers have more say in the political process than large communities.
This is the reason why we have the House of Representatives: small states like Rhode Island should have a say in the political process, but less of one than much larger states like Texas and California.

This already happens.

California and Texas are the two states with the most EC votes of all (California has 55 and Texas has 38). By sheer state population size, Democrats usually win the big states, which have large amount of leverage on the EC by amount of votes allocated. Problem is, they lose a bunch of small areas. Even if you were to put it on a county-by-county basis and weigh them accordingly, there are far more small counties that vote red while the city/urban counties are small gulfs within those states. So, yes, the urban areas have a lot of the pull in sheer numbers, but it's picked apart by the sheer number of non-urban counties.

Poor Texas. Always number 2.

[Tarsonis]

There's a good way to avoid being investigated for breaking the law: don't break the law.

I thought you hated this mindset, or is that only when Trump ignores subpoenas?

I haven't commented on the Barr issue, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Cheers.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The investigations repeatedly concluded that she didn't break the law, so I'm not sure what you're basing this on.

No they concluded that she didn't mean to break the law. Which for anybody with the last name that's not Trump or Clinton, that's total whoreshit.

That's not what I heard or read at any point (the general consensus seemed to be "she was dangerously careless, but nothing that happened was actually illegal"). I'm curious where you got this from.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I thought you hated this mindset, or is that only when Trump ignores subpoenas?

I haven't commented on the Barr issue, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Cheers.

Eh, going by what we've seen in this thread, it's a reasonable guess to make. It really shouldn't be, but it is.

[Telconi]

No they concluded that she didn't mean to break the law. Which for anybody with the last name that's not Trump or Clinton, that's total whoreshit.

That's not what I heard or read at any point (the general consensus seemed to be "she was dangerously careless, but nothing that happened was actually illegal"). I'm curious where you got this from.

The FBI report specifically outlined the number of known times she transmitted classified information via personal e-mail.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

This already happens.

California and Texas are the two states with the most EC votes of all (California has 55 and Texas has 38). By sheer state population size, Democrats usually win the big states, which have large amount of leverage on the EC by amount of votes allocated. Problem is, they lose a bunch of small areas. Even if you were to put it on a county-by-county basis and weigh them accordingly, there are far more small counties that vote red while the city/urban counties are small gulfs within those states. So, yes, the urban areas have a lot of the pull in sheer numbers, but it's picked apart by the sheer number of non-urban counties.

Poor Texas. Always number 2.

Some people might knock silver, but I'd like to see you kill a werewolf with a gold medal.

[Telconi]

That sounds terrible.

Why, because you'll lose?

In a nutshell, yes. More accurately because I'd lose to an untenable opposition.

[Tarsonis]

No they concluded that she didn't mean to break the law. Which for anybody with the last name that's not Trump or Clinton, that's total whoreshit.

That's not what I heard or read at any point (the general consensus seemed to be "she was dangerously careless, but nothing that happened was actually illegal"). I'm curious where you got this from.

From Comey.

1. “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
2. Clinton’s emails included seven message chains with information classified as top secret.
3. “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”
4. “The security culture of the State Department …was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”
5. Comey acknowledged that the FBI did not normally make public its recommendations to prosecutors as to whether to bring criminal charges. He added: “In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.”
6. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
7. “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/washin ... story.html



2 and 3 there are illegal. 4 is bad policy. 5-7 aren't all that relevant.


1. Excuses what their breaking of the laws regarding classified material, by saying "Well they didn't mean to."