US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Catfish]

If - by pure number of "inhabitants" - a bigger state in the US has less say in elections (=less presidential electors), by which definition or by which law does it have less presidential electors than a smaller state? Economical strength? Tradition?

I mean what is the key to how many presidential electors a state has?
Does this change, or is the number fixed?
Who decides or decided (centuries ago?) how many?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

If - by pure number of "inhabitants" - a bigger state in the US has less say in elections (=less presidential electors), by which definition or by which law does it have less presidential electors than a smaller state? Economical strength? Tradition?

I mean what is the key to how many presidential electors a state has?
Does this change, or is the number fixed?
Who decides or decided (centuries ago?) how many?

The number of each state's electors is equal to the sum of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives; currently there are 100 senators and 435 representatives.

Each state has two Senators and the number of Representatives is decided by population.

[Catfish]

Then i do no understand it - when the amount/number of population of each state is being represented in the number of senators and representatives, how can a smaller state then ever outrule a bigger one?

If not, who decides or decided this numbers of senators and representatives per state, and by which aspects?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Then i do no understand it - when the amount/number of population of each state is being represented in the number of senators and representatives, how can a smaller state then ever outrule a bigger one?

If not, who decides or decided this numbers of senators and representatives per state, and by which aspects?

The number of Senators remains the same, two per state regardless of size. The number of representatives can change if the population changes. That is decided when a census is taken. The problem that some people have is with the Senate. But that is another issue.

[Catfish]

So it is like with the EU, any nation (or state in the US) regardless of population or economic value has the same say/vote ?

edit: so senator numbers are equal, but not "representatives"?
But the senators count regarding presidential elections, not the representatives?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

So it is like with the EU, any nation (or state in the US) regardless of population or economic value has the same say/vote ?

No. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. They are distributed by population which is how the number of Representatives is decided. The number of Electors per state is the same as the number of Representatives plus two for the two Senators. So they all count but of course some states have very large populations and some don’t. The problem that those who oppose this arrangment is the winner take all result. Which ever party wins the most House seats in a state gets all of the Electoral votes.

In forty-eight states and D.C., the winner of the plurality of the statewide vote receives all of that state's electors; in Maine and Nebraska, two electors are assigned in this manner and the remaining electors are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each congressional district.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

It's all coming up Trump!

Trump nominated for second Nobel Peace Prize following Serbia-Kosovo deal
https://nypost.com/2020/09/11/donald...l-peace-prize/

Originally Posted by Skybird

I must teeth-grindingly admit that with the two treaties between Israel and the UAE and Bahrein he has scored big. To what degree it was him and to what degree it was senior diplomats, is something else.

Originally Posted by Grumpy Pete

True. And quite honestly, just about every administration has tried (and failed) to broker a Middle East peace plan since ~1948. What Trump has accomplished in this area in one term is quite impressive indeed. Whether it was done by senior diplomats or is something Trump had a hands on approach to doesn't matter. It is happening on his watch.


Seriously, if it was anyone else besides Trump that was putting his signature on this plan, even the Democrats would be recommending the Nobel Peace Prize...

Trump's (or maybe better said, Jared's) Mideast peace process may have resulted in a seeming detente of sorts, but it is still far and away from a comprehensive or even enforceable pair "peace accords"; as pointed out before, the known sponsorship of anti-Israeli and anti-American (along with several other "anti-" you-name the government/religion, etc., jihads) by wealthy, politically-connected and, in some cases where a monarchy exists, direct family members of Arab nations, including the UAE and Bahrain, makes any superficial 'peace accords' a farce; the true sincerity of the Arab leadership in such accords will only be verified when they actively and decisively bring to account those who directly sponsor/support terrorism against non-Arab targets; the '"accords' may buy some time and give the Arab states a powder-puff dusting of respectability and may attempt to burnish a severely domestically damaged US government, but it is just no better than a shadow show of Potemkinish PR...


As far as the assertion that:

And quite honestly, just about every administration has tried (and failed) to broker a Middle East peace plan since ~1948.

...well, as with other grandiose claims made by Trump and/or his Trumpettes, history and facts say otherwise":


1978 Camp David Accords (under Carter) which led to...

1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (under Carter)

1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty (under Clinton)


... and this is not to mention other inter-State accords such as the 2003 Geneva Accord that is still in force today, although the participants are still in an uphill slog owing to the effort of states such as UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc. and their citizens to undermine peace efforts regarding Israel...


When the citizens of the US and Israel no longer have to live under a sort of 'siege' by Arab state and citizen sponsored terrorism, then I would be willing to say progress has been made; as of now, the Trump "accomplishments" in the Mideast are scarcely worth the ink used to sign them and have as little credence or verity as Trump himself...


...although I'll bet Trump and Jerod got a hell of a real estate deal out of the Arabs...and maybe a bit of under the table campaign/personal bailout funding, to boot...





<O>

[vienna]

In the continuing race to see just how hypocritical and nonsensically idiotic the GOP can get, Lindsey Graham submits his own bid for the crown:


Lindsey Graham Bashed For Trump Hypocrisy As He Mocks Rival For Not Baring Tax Returns --

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/linds...b67602f6060fae


Boy, I bet Graham gets an earful from Massa Trump when he reports back to the White House plantation about how he just threw Capt. Bonespurs under the wheels of the bus...


Meanwhile, another Trump minion springs up to give the GOP another headache:


Roger Stone to Donald Trump: bring in martial law if you lose election --

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-lose-election


Stone, by the way, made local LA headlines, which later broke nationally, when he gave his first interview after his commutation of his sentence on criminal charges by Trump; he appeared as a phone line guest on a local radio talk show hosted by an African-American, Mo Kelly; I listen to Kelly's show since he is an Independent, proudly so, and gives it to both the left and right, Dem and GOP, and is extremely fair and evenhanded in his approach; Kelly uses logic and common sense to puncture anyone's balloon who tries to float unsubstantiated rhetoric as fact; Stone appeared on Kelly's show willingly and with full consent and agreed prior to the airing that all subjects were open; after some standard questions, Kelly asked Stone if Stone believed he would have gotten preferential treatment of his case, via a commutation from Trump, if Stone had not been an ally and longtime associate of Trump; there was a bit of silence an then the sound of Stone turning away from his phone, whereupon he is heard telling someone in Stone's room "“I don’t feel like arguing with this negro." Stone apparently thought the comment did not go out over the air, which it did (I actually heard it live while I was shopping and I was stunned Stone could be so stupid); Kelly, who distinctly heard the comment, called out Stone on his use of the term 'negro' and Stone, realizing he was heard made a fumbled denial of saying the word; I've got to give Kelly credit; he kept his cool and, other than pointing out Stone was recorded saying what he said, continued on with the interview, which was curtailed due to 'something came up' for Stone...


Roger Stone Uses Racial Slur During Live Interview on ‘The Mo’Kelly Show’ --

https://variety.com/2020/politics/ne...ow-1234710588/


It is said you can tell the quality of a person by the company they keep; Stone and Trump speak volumes about each other and about those who consider them to be 'decent' persons...





<O>

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by vienna

Trump's (or maybe better said, Jared's) Mideast peace process may have resulted in a seeming detente of sorts, but it is still far and away from a comprehensive or even enforceable pair "peace accords";......

Doesn't matter at all , it's definitely progress and should be applauded by all.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Doesn't matter at all , it's definitely progress and should be applauded by all.

But, is it really progress or PR? The actual effect of the claimed 'progress' isn't known and still won't be known for a very long time if ever; remember, Saudi Arabia has, in the past, subscribed to various 'peace proposals' only to turn a blind eye to the support of terrorism against Israel, the US, and other countries/entities by not only their citizens, but, also, members of the SA government and the Saudi Royal Family; the actual intent by SA in making its public show of 'endorsing' various 'peace proposals' has been more as a means of buying time and whitewashing what their citizens actually espouse; there has been a long time shell game of SA, and other Arab nations, actively engaging in sponsorship of terrorism and then trying to wash it all away by hiding behind the PR of 'peace proposals'; the Arab response to various outings of terrorist activities launched by their citizens has been one of 'But, we are not responsible; see, we have a peace document we signed to prove its not our fault!', an act as convincing as Claude Rains' police Captain who was "shocked! shocked!!" by wrongdoing he either was aware of or in which he participated in the movie Casablanca...

Of all the many, many, peace efforts launched in the Mideast, only two have afforded Israel any modicum of enhanced security: the Egypt-Israel and the Israel-Jordan Treaties; although they have not been perfect, they have, in fact removed a considerable amount of concern about those two states regarding Israel, and, by extension, the US and others; Jordan has maintained a hands off stance towards Israel and has not been welcoming to the more radical Islamists; Egypt has also been significantly less of a threat and has actually cooperated with US security entities in routing out terrorism; all in all not a bad result...

The latest UAE and Bahrain 'peace agreements' really do little more than attempt to burnish the international image of those states while giving them a quasi "plausible deniability" factor when they are "shocked! shocked!!" when one of their citizens is caught involved in terrorism...

Then there is the plight of a flailing Trump who desperately needs a PR "win", any "win", even if it is a hollow shell...

I wonder what Trump promised the UAE/Bahrain to get his faux deal...?...








<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Doesn't matter at all , it's definitely progress and should be applauded by all.

Indeed. Bravo.

Originally Posted by vienna

I wonder what Trump promised the UAE/Bahrain to get his faux deal...?...

Perhaps there will be billions in cash to fund terrorist operations. That's never happened before.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by vienna

In the continuing race to see just how hypocritical and nonsensically idiotic the GOP can get,

<O>

Ok, point taken.

But let's talk about hypocrisiy where it matters. Your Democrats constantly chant diversity! inclusion! POC power! When your primaries began there was a gay dude, several blacks, women, POC, hispanics, asians, and a Jew, yet somehow, somehow you managed to weed them all out and select a senile old white man whose 40+ years in political life are distinguished by one noteworthy accomplishment, the Biden Crime Bill, that he is now running away from as fast as his hairy legs will carry him.

Yeah, that's hypocrisy, where it counts.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Ok, point taken.

But let's talk about hypocrisiy where it matters. Your Democrats constantly chant diversity! inclusion! POC power! When your primaries began there was a gay dude, several blacks, women, POC, hispanics, asians, and a Jew, yet somehow, somehow you managed to weed them all out and select a senile old white man whose 40+ years in political life are distinguished by one noteworthy accomplishment, the Biden Crime Bill, that he is now running away from as fast as his hairy legs will carry him.

Yeah, that's hypocrisy, where it counts.

...

Neal, nice try, but no cigar...


I'm not a Democrat and if you look at my posts, I vary rarely, if ever, "defend" them; once, some long time ago, in a thread far, far away, someone called me to task saying I was "defending" DEMs because I didn't criticize them openly in the threads, to which I pointed out there were so many anti-DEM posts, I just didn't see any point to unnecessarily pile on and, personally I don't think my agreeing would enhance the argument(s); reinventing the wheel is not my style; so don't mistake silence for complicity...

As far as hypocrisy is concerned, the GOP has a very long standing reputation of publicly stating lofty principles such as "family values", "law and order", and things like "not negotiating with terrorists" and "cleaning up the government", yet the past GOP administrations and Congresses have seen wide cases of adultery, sexual scandal, breach of laws of all types, backroom deals with not only terrorists, but, also, their sponsors, and some of the worst corruption and abuse of power ever seen in the modern US; the big difference in the GOP's finger pointing at the DEMs is they seem very hard pressed to explain their own failure to police their own while condemning others; if you're gonna talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk, and so far the GOP has been very badly limping and putting up the idiocy, incompetency, and failure of Trump as their paragon doesn't make their stumbling any better; much like the Far-Right evangelicals who seem to be at a loss to defend or explain away their espousal of Trump when he is so blatantly a prime example of what a Christian should not be, the GOP can't seem to sell Trump as what a competent, sane, and effective President should be...

As an Independent, I don't 'defend' any party or political partisanship, but I will point out when a falsehood or distortion of facts does occur if no one else will and if I feel it is constructive in any degree; again silence is not agreement...

If the GOP wants to be taken seriously about their Flag-wrapped (but hollow) platitudes, then they have to grow a spine and clean house and maintain the standards they claim to have; if they did, who knows... I might just decide to join a party...


Now, go find some Democrats to hound about their hypocrisy...




<O>

[JU_88]

Do you consider "family values" & "law and order" to be lofty principles? would you like to live in a society that doesnt value them at all ? I very much doubt it since with out them there is no 'society' just 'survival'. :P They are good principles and we would not be here without them, but they are also such obvious principles they shouldn't need polticians to re-enforce them. Because we cannot survive as speices with out them. Fine if you're a total nihlist, but if not.....

But, yes hypocrisy is common. If you want to find examples of that from either Dems or Reps, you would never run out of ammunition.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Do you consider "family values" & "law and order" to be lofty principles? would you like to live in a society that doesnt value them at all ? I very much doubt it since with out them there is no 'society' just 'survival'. :P They are good principles and we would not be here without them, but they are also such obvious principles they shouldn't need polticians to re-enforce them. Because we cannot survive as speices with out them.

But, yes hypocrisy is common. If you want to find examples of that from either Dems or Reps, you would never run out of ammunition.

I wasn't arguing "family values" & "law and order" weren't lofty principle; I was, however, stating if you are going to claim principles and/or their defense, you had better be prepared to actually be enforcing adherence to those principles; "family values" are not being defended or upheld when your 'flag-bearer' has a very long and sordid history of moral depravity nor is "law and order" being honored when that same 'flag-bearer' has an equally long history of skirting and breaking the law and continues to be the target of numerous criminal investigations; let's face it: Trump is so desperate to stay in office not because he feels a calling to civic duty, but more because he knows the certainty is he will be doing a perp walk once he out from behind the shield of the office...

Yes, "family values" & "law and order" are "such obvious principles they shouldn't need polticians to re-enforce them", but when those politicians use those principles as an argument for their careers and their party, then we should really expect them to actually serve as an example of their espoused principles...

If you're gonna claim to be an animal lover, kicking a dog in public ain't a great idea...

It occurred to me that the DEMs have maybe actually gotten it right; they don't tend to campaign or claim based of lofty principles, they tend to deal with specific issues; they don't have to defend equivocations based on claimed virtues, something the GOP might want to consider: less platitudes, more specificity and provable results...




<O>