US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I wonder if taking away the electoral college would lead to a one party system in the USA.

There is no need to do away with the Electoral College. That would take a constitutional amendment.

The solution is for each state to decide to assign their electors on a proportional scale instead of the more traditional "winner take all". That does not require any constitutional amendment just a change in the individual state laws.

That will bring the EC in alignment with the popular vote in each state., while still maintaining the concept of the president being elected by the majority of votes in the majority of states.

[August]

Oh but the Electoral College is only the start. How about the idea being floated along with the elimination of the EC that it is unfair to big states that they only get the same number of Senators as small states?

[Sailor Steve]

Whoever propounded that idea is woefully ignorant of history. The representation question was the biggest bone of contention at the original Constitutional Convention, and the two-senators-per-state concept came about because the smaller states objected to proportional representation.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Whoever propounded that idea is woefully ignorant of history. The representation question was the biggest bone of contention at the original Constitutional Convention, and the two-senators-per-state concept came about because the smaller states objected to proportional representation.

Apparently the debate continues:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/polit...urt/index.html

[Sailor Steve]

Great. Just great. The guy's either an idiot or a master manipulator.

[Mr Quatro]

Remember not that long ago when the Democrat's were in charge of the House and the Senate? They changed the voting law to a simple majority instead of the 2/3's needed to pass.

That has come back to haunt them ... I fear if they get the House and the Senate back that they could try to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of winner take all in future National Presidential races thinking that they have the numbers to win.

Trump won due to fear of Clinton being able to pick the next two to three Supreme Court justices ... the fear of House and Senate majority rule by the democrats could result in the same thing happening in the 2020 election

With the GOP (and whoever they pick) winning the WH again

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

That has come back to haunt them ... I fear if they get the House and the Senate back that they could try to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of winner take all in future National Presidential races thinking that they have the numbers to win.

The Electoral College is established in the Constitution .. Article II. What that means is that to abolish or alter it in any way requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

Seems unlikely.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by u crank

The Electoral College is established in the Constitution .. Article II. What that means is that to abolish or alter it in any way requires is a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

Seems unlikely.

Oh I see, never mind!

[August]

Interesting article on a case being heard by the Supreme Court over the Governments asset forfeiture program.

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Timbs v. Indiana, a case that could have huge ramifications for the way states and local governments use civil asset forfeiture to target the property of suspected criminals. As most Reason readers are probably aware, asset forfeiture is the process by which law enforcement can seize cars, cash, homes, and pretty much anything else that is suspected of being used to commit a crime or believed to be the proceeds of a crime. Often, suspects do not have to be convicted of anything—sometimes they aren't even charged—before they can be deprived of their property. To top it all off, law enforcement often has a perverse incentive to engage in this sort of thing because the proceeds of forfeiture can get plugged directly into their own budgets. Tyson Timbs, the plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court, was arrested in 2015 after selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to one count of dealing a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to commit theft, and he was sentenced to one year of house arrest followed by five years of probation. Additionally, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover—which he had purchased with money received from his late father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales—on the ground that it had been used to commit a crime.
At the Supreme Court, Timbs' attorneys are arguing that the seizure of the Land Rover is an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines and fees.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/28/b...miHKs1VlXjsjq8

[Platapus]

In my opinion, civil asset forfeiture should only be assigned by the courts and only after a conviction.

Having the same organization that will receive the assets being in charge of when assets can be seized is a conflict of interest.

[Onkel Neal]

I miss him

Reagan was giving a speech in West Berlin when a balloon popped very loudly

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I miss him

So did that guy.

[Onkel Neal]

I tell you, it's not just Trump, or Trump supporters. Something fundamental has changed with American society. Recent example: It's all over the news, as if it was significant-- Michelle Obama, who has been a pillar of class for as long as she's been in the public eye, was hosting a book tour event yesterday. She let a swear word slip, which can happen, no harm, no foul. But the reaction, by supposedly thoughtful, intelligent people, seems on par with a Metallica crowd reaction.

She said that marriage inequality can’t be solved by women ‘leaning in’ because ‘that s*** doesn’t work all the time.’

Ok, my reaction would be a smile, cause I know what she's getting at, and knowing her, it's apparent that she used the causal expression for emphasis but probably not for shock value.

But her people, ha!

Michelle Obama’s use of the four-letter word ‘s***’ sent the crowd into a frenzy at Barclays Center, according to social media.

A Twitter user named Megan tweeted: ‘Despite waiting in the rain for an hour to get into the Barclays Center, I was just in the same room as Michelle Obama and she accidentally said “s***” and it was amazing and my life has been forever changed.’

Erin Strecker tweeted: ‘At Barclays tonight, Michelle Obama said: “It’s not enough to Lean In because that s*** doesn’t always work!” Tattoo it on my body!’

Kevin Flynn tweeted: ‘Tonight at the Barclays Center Michelle Obama accidentally said “s***” in front of thousands of people and it ruled.’

I believe there are a similar number of Trump-equivalents on the left side as there are Trumpettes on the right. Same cut of people, to the bone, just wearing a different hat.

[August]

It's looking like this latest "Trump is going down" fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

Contrary to media speculation that Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, the special prosecutor’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.
Cohen pleaded guilty last week to making false statements in 2017 to the Senate intelligence committee about the Trump Organization’s failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Discussions about the so-called Moscow Project continued five months longer in 2016 than Cohen had initially stated under oath.

The nine-page charging document filed with the plea deal suggests that the special counsel is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question told RealClearInvestigations that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president. They made this assessment in light of the charging document, known as a statement of “criminal information” (filed in lieu of an indictment when a defendant agrees to plead guilty); a fuller accounting of Cohen’s emails and text messages that Capitol Hill sources have seen; and the still-secret transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by a business associate of Cohen.

https://www.realclearinvestigations....ing_trump.html

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by August

It's looking like this latest "Trump is going down" fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

If I was, or is it were, President Trump I would tell Mueller to poopy or get off the pot. This has taken way too long and too much attention and too much time to investigate. Trump won and that is all there is to it ...

Mean while the Russians are still up to their old tricks of trying to influence what America thinks and who they should vote for.

They must get a kick out of manipulation