The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[jamil]

Another point about this. The president shouldn't really be all that important. The president shouldn't have so much power that people "need" to have to have this or that person as president. Same thing with SCOTUS. That's made more important than it should be because they've appointed themselves as 3rd tier lawmakers.

What should be most important to voters is the people in office closest to them, in state and local offices, because those should be the people with the most direct power.

 

[T.Lex]

Another point about this. The president shouldn't really be all that important. The president shouldn't have so much power that people "need" to have to have this or that person as president.

The New Deal structurally changed that. The Administrative Branch needs an Executive to direct it, and that's what Congress delegated to POTUS.

 

[ghuns]

Another point about this. The president shouldn't really be all that important. The president shouldn't have so much power that people "need" to have to have this or that person as president...

Amen.

...Same thing with SCOTUS. That's made more important than it should be because they've appointed themselves as 3rd tier lawmakers...

Yeah, but I'd argue that they're more like 1st tier nowadays. As such, my vote for president really comes down to who I expect a candidate would appoint. Sad, but true.

And it would take a candidate who exhibits exponentially more douchbaggery or dictatorial behavior than the current occupant of the White House to make me vote for someone that I think would appoint a SCOTUS justice who would rule against issues I deem important.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's not. The states elect the president. The president your state chooses is indeed by the power of a single individual, with one vote, weighed as equally as another in your state, unless the electors chose someone else. States may, of course, require electors to vote according to the vote of the people in their state. Or, like the fad that's going around now, require that the electors vote according with the proportions of the national popular vote.

Speaking of which, I kinda suspect that the first time a Republican president is elected because California's electors put him/her over the top because that candidate won the popular vote, that **** will be ripped from state law. The. Next. Day.

Yes, of course. That's how it was meant to work, because of the lack of faith in the ability of the individual, and to appease regional interests. Mainly, thought, in its original intent, to placate regional interests. As even the power of the states were falsely balanced to make regional interests happy.

 

[BugI02]

Or the UN? Why do the members of the security council wield so much power? I'm not arguing the as to which system is the more beneficial overall. I have already said I disagree with popular elections, but I'm not so naive to not recognize that one person, one vote, is the most fair. If I lived in [STRIKE]California[/STRIKE] [the central valley], regardless of how many people thought like I did, why must my vote be weakened, respectively, compared to a voter in [STRIKE]Montana[/STRIKE] [LA county] ?

It's a fractal problem. Re-occurs at any scale you care to examine. So do you want to eliminate all unfairness, or just the ones that are in the way of what you want?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I actually have a problem with the EC, because it doesn't do enough to protect against tyranny of the majority. It's just that there doesn't seem to be a better system evident that solves all the problems.

Nevertheless, many of the complaints about how it causes politicians to focus personal attention on a few swing states instead of broadening their attention, are blaming the wrong thing. It isn't a problem that the EC caused. The cause is the geologic and demographic breath of the US electorate. The US is too large and diverse for politicians at the national level to spend adequate time with each faction in each state. If it were popular vote, national politicians would have little reason to visit what are the swing states now.

That became evident in the 2016 election. We've discussed this here before. Hillary could have won in 2016 if she'd have spent more time in the swing states that she ended up losing. It's been reported that she was confident that she'd win the election, but was worried that she'd lose the popular vote. So she campaigned in the dense population centers, and she got a crap ton of votes from those dense population centers. Didn't matter, because they were from the same few states which she was already going to win.

Yeah, those "stone"ers always have weed on their breath. And as far as demographic breath, are you talking about how Italians have garlic on their breath? And I've noticed some Asians' breath smells funny too, but I can't quite place what it smells like.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Treating everyone equally isn't usually fair, because rarely is everyone equal. There are factors to consider.

This is exactly why the EC exists.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, those "stone"ers always have weed on their breath. And as far as demographic breath, are you talking about how Italians have garlic on their breath? And I've noticed some Asians' breath smells funny too, but I can't quite place what it smells like.

***damn iphone.

 

[jamil]

Yes, of course. That's how it was meant to work, because of the lack of faith in the ability of the individual, and to appease regional interests. Mainly, thought, in its original intent, to placate regional interests. As even the power of the states were falsely balanced to make regional interests happy.

The imbalance was in, not limiting the power of the state in terms of violating rights. If the US constitution was primarily concerned with “inalienable rights”, those natural rights don’t end at the state line. It’s reasonable in a federal system to set boundaries around the reason you made the constitution. And probably the bill of rights should have been incorporated explicitly.

And it wasn’t just in lack of faith in the electorate. The electorate still decides which candidate gets the state’s electors. The distrust part comes in where the electors may vote differently from the electorates’ will. And that’s one part that should probably be tweaked. Instead of human electors, it should just be automatic votes.

The popular vote law that states are passing subverts the will of the people in that state, and is therefore unfair to those voters. It also creates inequality between people in sane states and retarded states because if you’re in a retarded state, your vote doesn’t go to the candidate you wanted your state to vote for.

 

[Hawkeye]

I understand the argument, but it doesn't reconcile as to why the power of a single individual is usurped because the of the wish to maintain the collective values of one group. One vote should be weighed as equally as another. That obviously isn't true in the electoral college.

Why is that important? And in the case of, say, 100 people evenly split 50/50 on an issue... wouldn't you say that one person switching sides has a vote that is worth much more than the 49 that he/she left?

 

[T.Lex]

So this is strange. The RCP rolling average Trump Job Approval page only shows up through March 2019, for me. Can someone else check it? I tried refresh, different browser, private window and they all show the same.

Was the page hacked or something?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So this is strange. The RCP rolling average Trump Job Approval page only shows up through March 2019, for me. Can someone else check it? I tried refresh, different browser, private window and they all show the same.

Was the page hacked or something?

Looks up-to-date to me.

 

[T.Lex]

This link?
https://dyn.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Very odd - still showing only through mid-March for me.

 

[mmpsteve]

So this is strange. The RCP rolling average Trump Job Approval page only shows up through March 2019, for me. Can someone else check it? I tried refresh, different browser, private window and they all show the same.

Was the page hacked or something?

Is this what you're looking for? I'm showing thru 12/4.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

.

P.S.: your link has "dyn" in the address, mine doesn't

.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This link?
https://dyn.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Very odd - still showing only through mid-March for me.

Is this what you're looking for? I'm showing thru 12/4.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

.

That "dyn" in the URL seems to be the culprit. mmpsteve's link is the live one I found navigating through the site. Perhaps you had a favorite saved of a previous address

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This link?
https://dyn.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Very odd - still showing only through mid-March for me.

Is this what you're looking for? I'm showing thru 12/4.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the "dyn." in T.Lex's link is...

 

[KG1]

Yeah, I'm not sure what the "dyn." in T.Lex's link is...

I think the Russians inserted that.

 

[T.Lex]

Wow. That link worked, without the dyn.

To make matters more confusing, I actually don't have it bookmarked. I kinda use it as an ongoing google test. I always search "real clear politics polls" and see if the job approval pops up at the top. (Sometimes it doesn't.) Then click on whatever link. That search is apparently linking to the dyn.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Wow. That link worked, without the dyn.

To make matters more confusing, I actually don't have it bookmarked. I kinda use it as an ongoing google test. I always search "real clear politics polls" and see if the job approval pops up at the top. (Sometimes it doesn't.) Then click on whatever link. That search is apparently linking to the dyn.

You're right. This link here is going to the dyn address for some reason. Google crawls, finds, and shows what it wants... RCP doesn't have a huge hand in that.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, I'm generally aware of how automated google tries to be, which is part of the reason I started searching it instead of bookmarking it. Just as my own anecdotal test of how the algorithms work.

For context, I'm generally logged in to G-suite, so I know it knows alot about me. So, when I do the same "real clear politics polls" search that I run 3-4 times per week, ONLY clicking the Trump Job Approval link from the results, I would expect it to figure out that's the link I'm looking for and put it towards the top.

That's not what happens.

Sometimes, it isn't even on the first page.

And now, it appears to link to outdated information.

And t wasn't like that yesterday.