57
   

Let's get rid of the Electoral College

 
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 11:22 am
@Baldimo,
It arrived to the US via EU countries, you should read some of the epidemiological work. It was already here (In NYC) when Plump made a token act of closing off China.

Placing the sick into nursing homes was a NATIONAL disgrace. It ws a CDC dictum, not NY.


Plump and you are trying to make a disgraceful National "leadership free" problem and give Plump a pass.

Quote:
You mean a hospital ship that was never needed
YEP, Thanks to severe lockdowns and restrictions, NY got ahead of it and started the downward trend on cases .
Its sorta what theyre doing in the late "Blooming states" whove ignored common sense and listened to Plump's "Itll disappear beautifully "


If you want to give Trump credit, Im sorry but your head wont be ble to be extracted from your ass

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 11:27 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:

The number of infections is pointless as a vast vast majority of cases are asymptotic, more than 85%.

Asymptomatic individuals can spread the virus. The rate of fatality is not the only thing to be concerned about. The more people that become infected the more people need treatment. Treatment is expensive. People who survive often show disturbing effects which linger for months. Just allowing the whole country to contract the disease because maintaining social distancing is inconvenient is a terrible idea.

Quote:
Almost 32,000 people are dead in NY and you claim that's a good response?

Considering the number of people who were ill and the difficulty in securing PPE, ventilators, and drugs, yes it was a good response. Comparing NYC to Florida is like comparing apples to oranges...literally.

Quote:
There was no reason for the entire country to shutdown at the same time and limit people's movements.

I've said as much on another thread. But remember, the shutdown was a reaction to something that represented a potential emergency. And the very areas which you may not think should have been shut down are now areas with rapidly climbing numbers of cases.

Quote:
Cases can rise all they want to, 95% of people infected show little to no symptoms.

You claimed it was 85% before. In either case, those people can infect others and some of the infected people will come down with a serious disease.

Quote:
Recall your correction about asymptomatic people not spreading the virus?

Yes — I corrected you. You took the statement of one scientist who said asymptomatic carriers wouldn't infect others. The WHO corrected her statement the next day and I provided the link which showed you were mistaken.

Quote:
“The WHO created confusion yesterday when it reported that asymptomatic patients rarely spread the disease,” an email from the Harvard Global Health Institute said Tuesday. “All of the best evidence suggests that people without symptoms can and do readily spread SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. In fact, some evidence suggests that people may be most infectious in the days before they become symptomatic — that is, in the presymptomatic phase when they feel well, have no symptoms, but may be shedding substantial amounts of virus.”

McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 11:33 am
Topic: Let's get rid of the Electoral College

There are a bunch of COVID threads, take the argument there please.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 11:35 am
@hightor,
The WHO science disagrees with the 80% numbers. They are all over the map . Many of these are actually PRE symptomatic because the sickness can express itself sveral weeks later.
As youve said bfore, the research on the epidemiology and genomics has been showing interesting data
Blood type susceptibility

degree of exposure

deep pneumo infection v just uppre resp tract.

Coupla weeks ago it was masks are "useless" and malarial meds "are game changers".

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 11:40 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
There are a bunch of COVID threads, take the argument there please.

You don't get to determine what people say on a thread. Baldimo brought up Trump's covid response and I've continued the discussion that he started.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 11:52 am
@hightor,
Sure I do, I have this.

https://i.imgflip.com/1ee522.jpg

So please argue about COVID in another thread.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2020 12:05 pm
@hightor,
Now apply this to Zardoz and his thread...
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 05:37 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
No, it's the closest state in size and population.

"Apples and oranges", get it? The "Big Apple"? Florida orange juice? Get it?
Quote:
The only difference is the city of NY.

Florida doesn't have anything which compares to the sprawl and density of the NY metropolitan area. The difference is crucial. You might as well claim that the only difference between 3.2% beer and Everclear is the alcohol.

I'm not giving all the credit to Cuomo. A lot of it goes to the people — citizens who actually listened to the warnings and took the recommended precautions. Instead of walking around like armed goons crying because they couldn't get a haircut.

McGentrix
 
  5  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 06:31 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

"Apples and oranges", get it? The "Big Apple"? Florida orange juice? Get it?


*grumble-grumble*

That was funny.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 06:56 am
@hightor,
I agree with McG.

The "apples and oranges" thingy was brilliant.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 08:51 am
So, getting back to the Constitution. I do respect it as an historical document which reflects some of the best things about the English Enlightenment. But I don't revere it the way some conservatives do, expecting everyone else to feel the same way. Within eight years after it was ratified the understanding of the role of electors had changed. Hamilton had envisioned a body of wise men who would serve as a way to insulate the office of the president from the rule of the mob. The rise of factionalism enshrined populist mob rule but the document was never changed to reflect this. Similarly the role and purpose of the militia was pretty much obviated by the time of the War of 1812, but the document was never changed.
Quote:

Section VIII

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

If basic matters like this can be completely overlooked what is the purpose of the Constitution? Compare the Constitution's authority to a corporation: The corporation can exist past the lifespan of its original owners, but only by people taking ownership of it voluntarily over time, not by some kind of forced ownership by descendants.
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 10:49 am
Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court?

Quote:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that states could ban so-called faithless electors — meaning, for instance, that if Colorado’s voters choose a Democrat for president, Colorado can require its Electoral College members to vote for the Democrat. The decision will help stop electors from “going rogue,” as seven of 538 did in 2016.

It also raises some broader questions about the future of the Electoral College, and, in particular, about the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which states accounting for at least 270 electoral votes would agree to award their electors to whichever presidential candidate received the most votes nationwide. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, with 196 electoral votes among them, have signed on, but their commitment will not take effect unless enough states join them to reach 270.

Supporters of the compact see it as a way to functionally abolish the Electoral College without going through the extraordinarily difficult process of amending the Constitution to abolish it formally.

So if the Supreme Court has confirmed that electors can be required to vote in accordance with their state’s popular vote, does that mean they can also be required to vote in accordance with the national popular vote? Did proponents of a national popular vote just get a hidden victory?

In a word, no — but there could be some subtle benefits for them.

“The kind of challenges that would be mounted against the National Popular Vote Compact involve different legal questions,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine.

Those challenges would probably relate to the Compact Clause of the Constitution, which says in part that states can’t “enter into any agreement or compact with another state” without congressional approval. Courts have generally found that this restriction applies only to interstate agreements that increase states’ power at the expense of the federal government, or that lessen the power of states that aren’t in the agreement.

The question, then, is “whether or not the National Popular Vote Compact would be the kind of compact between states that could not be enacted without congressional approval,” Professor Hasen said, “and that’s something that the court didn’t speak to at all.”

There are, however, some indirect ways in which the ruling could affect national popular vote efforts.

From a legal standpoint, you can’t draw a line between the court’s ruling on Monday and national popular vote efforts, but “politically speaking, you absolutely can,” said Jessica A. Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who studies election law and hosts a podcast on politics and the law.

“By strengthening the Electoral College and making it more rigid, I think it actually emboldens the national popular vote movement,” Professor Levinson said.

The chance for electors to go rogue in past elections, she said, may actually have lessened the pressure to abolish the Electoral College because electors had the ability, at least in theory, to support the winner of the national popular vote if they wanted to — even if, in practice, they almost never did (case in point: 2016). Monday’s ruling ensures that in most states, that will no longer be allowed.

More practically speaking, if the court had ruled the other way, it might have made the National Popular Vote Compact unenforceable. After all, if the justices had found that states cannot force electors to vote a certain way, then states presumably couldn’t have forced electors to abide by the national popular vote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. brought that up in oral arguments in May, asking Lawrence Lessig, who was arguing in favor of faithless electors, “Under your view, there would be no way to enforce the popular vote referendum?”

Mr. Lessig said that assessment was correct: The compact would require participating states to choose a set of electors “that fits with the winner of the national popular vote, and that slate of electors then would have the same discretion, legal discretion, that we believe any elector has.”

The justices’ rejection of Mr. Lessig’s arguments, then, at least leaves open the possibility that the compact could be enforced.

Interestingly, Mr. Lessig supports the National Popular Vote Compact and had suggested that he saw the lawsuit the Supreme Court resolved on Monday as a way to put pressure on Americans to abandon the Electoral College system. The idea was that perhaps with enough faithless electors, the system would become so chaotic that there would be little choice but to tear it down.

Professor Levinson said she was not convinced by that argument. “We have plenty of broken systems, and it seems to me we’re fairly comfortable living with them,” she said.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 11:14 am
@hightor,
Quote:
I'm not giving all the credit to Cuomo. A lot of it goes to the people — citizens who actually listened to the warnings and took the recommended precautions. Instead of walking around like armed goons crying because they couldn't get a haircut.

Haha, goons. People who block streets, burn business and attack people are goons. Peacefully protesting for your state to reopen after a supposed "2 week" lockdown isn't being a goon.

Quote:
Compare the Constitution's authority to a corporation:

Talk about apples and oranges. There is no comparison between a corporation and the Constitution and trying to make a comparison is intellectual dishonesty. One is actually a construct of the people, the other is personal property created by a person or persons and not subject to votes by the people for leadership.

Quote:
The corporation can exist past the lifespan of its original owners,

Yes it can, it can be passed down from family member to family member for many generations, until one day one of those generations sells it to a larger company and or they gain a board of directors to manage the business once it gets to a certain size.

Quote:
but only by people taking ownership of it voluntarily over time

What does this even mean? Do you mean the workers taking over control of the business over time, as in socialism, or do you mean the changing hands of ownership via legal means of commerce, selling and buying?

Quote:
, not by some kind of forced ownership by descendants.

Forced ownership by descendants? You mean rightful ownership because it was passed down to them from another family member who owned it and they might have gotten it from another family member who started the business. No one takes ownership of a company, unless you are referring to "hostile takeovers" it is either sold or merged with another company, but it's never taken.
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 11:56 am
@Baldimo,
Not all the looters and people responsible for burning buildings were the BLM protestors, some were either the opposite side trying to make the BLM look bad, or just agitators in general.

In any event the destruction of public property is against the law and should be treated as such, period.

However, most of the BLM protestors were indeed peaceful. The one in the front of the WH who got peppered sprayed and hauled away were peaceful protestors. The protest in my own hometown was a peaceful protest, with nary a loaded gun or looter in sight.
Baldimo
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 12:36 pm
@revelette1,
Quote:
Not all the looters and people responsible for burning buildings were the BLM protestors, some were either the opposite side trying to make the BLM look bad, or just agitators in general.

There is actually zero proof that any of the looting and destruction was done by the "opposite side" as you are indicating. In fact the one mayor who tried to claim such a thing was proven as a liar when arrested records were looked at and determined that a majority of the people arrested were locals, not from out of state.

BTW, I never said anything about BLM, I simply said protesters, rioters and looters. What I saw was peaceful during the day with mostly good people, I didn't like the people getting in the faces of strangers or the police and just screaming at them, marching and then when the sun went down the goons came out and destroyed local business's and burned them to the ground.

Quote:
n any event the destruction of public property is against the law and should be treated as such, period.

The problem is that a lot of them mayors of those cities are not going to press charges against anyone for what they did, they are just about letting everyone arrested go with no charges.

Quote:
However, most of the BLM protestors were indeed peaceful.

As noted, that applies to the day time protesters, the night was ruled by mobs of destruction.

Quote:
The one in the front of the WH who got peppered sprayed and hauled away were peaceful protestors. The protest in my own hometown was a peaceful protest, with nary a loaded gun or looter in sight.

That's because you attended a day time protest, like a respectable person would do. There were zero peaceful night time protests from early June until about the 3rd week, cities burned at night and then the peaceful people would do their thing during the day, with almost no mention of the destruction taking place.

The CHAZ/CHOP was a joke, 4 people were killed during that scam of a "love fest" and they weren't killed by the city police. We won't know the full scope of the crime that took place there for sometime, there are vested interests in keeping things quite so other "zones" can be created in other big cities.
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 04:24 pm
@Baldimo,
I suppose the word "boogoloo" means nothing to you. Three of them were arrested during protest which was going on after Floyd was killed.

Explainer: Who are Antifa, the 'boogaloo' movement and others blamed in U.S. protest violence?

Quote:
Federal prosecutors filed charges this week against three alleged boogaloo members accused of plotting to cause violence and destruction at Las Vegas protest.

coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 04:34 pm
@revelette1,
Quote:
Three of them

How many Antifa have been arrested?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 05:12 pm
@revelette1,
Quote:
I suppose the word "boogoloo" means nothing to you.

Yes, I've heard of the "boogoloo" movement, and it's a little hard to fight a civil war in Hawain Shirts... you leftists will never learn to meme or tell jokes.

Quote:
Three of them were arrested during protest which was going on after Floyd was killed.

Explainer: Who are Antifa, the 'boogaloo' movement and others blamed in U.S. protest violence?

Yeah, 3 guys is a movement...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2020 07:15 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
So, getting back to the Constitution. I do respect it as an historical document which reflects some of the best things about the English Enlightenment. But I don't revere it the way some conservatives do, expecting everyone else to feel the same way.

This is why progressives are bad people. They want to do away with our Constitution.


hightor wrote:
Within eight years after it was ratified the understanding of the role of electors had changed. Hamilton had envisioned a body of wise men who would serve as a way to insulate the office of the president from the rule of the mob. The rise of factionalism enshrined populist mob rule but the document was never changed to reflect this.

The Electoral College continues to fill a vital role in the protection of the nation against populist mobs.

Without the Electoral College, our presidential elections would be decided by a few large population centers.

The Electoral College ensures that the rest of the nation also has a voice in electing the President.


hightor wrote:
Similarly the role and purpose of the militia was pretty much obviated by the time of the War of 1812, but the document was never changed.
Quote:
Section VIII

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Why does that need to be changed?

If our policing was done by having our sheriffs deputize trained militiamen, would things really be all that different?


hightor wrote:
If basic matters like this can be completely overlooked what is the purpose of the Constitution?

The purpose is to prevent progressives from inflicting their bad ideas on the nation.

Progressives endlessly try to force bad ideas on society the world over, and the Constitution provides America with protection from these bad ideas.

The only reason why America remains free while all the rest of the planet has abolished freedom is because the Constitution will not allow progressives to abolish freedom in America.

Without our Constitution and its protections, we will very quickly lose our freedom just like the rest of the planet.


hightor wrote:
Compare the Constitution's authority to a corporation: The corporation can exist past the lifespan of its original owners, but only by people taking ownership of it voluntarily over time, not by some kind of forced ownership by descendants.

Modern Americans are happy to take ownership of the Constitution and the protections that it provides against the progressive menace.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 03:22:47