Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 04-28-2019, 08:17 AM   #641
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

History will not judge this congress well. This may be the moment in American history where the viability of the electoral college is finally viewed as the failed compromise it was, and that the American empire breathed its last breath.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2019, 09:20 AM   #642
AltaGuy
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
 
AltaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Default

Quite aside from my personal views on the matter (impeach the goblin!), it really does seem as if momentum is swinging that way among Democrats. It will be quite the political theatre. The Tweet Storm will be crazy.
AltaGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 10:20 AM   #643
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Impeachment is a waste of time. It will just increase great rift in the country. They are better to focus their energies in defeating Trump at the polls, then allowing the states to take the appropriate legal actions to toss Trump and his family in prison. Win the election and then let the judicial process work its magic. The Democrats come out of that looking great. Impeachment is a means to getting the Republican base activated. Let them tire of Trump and his broken promises. Run a good campaign and beat them fair and square!
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 10:39 AM   #644
MelBridgeman
Franchise Player
 
MelBridgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Perspective!

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by icecube
It's really hard to tell sometimes if you're an alt right true believer or just a bigoted troll. Props if you're just a troll because you're not bad at it. But if you actually really believe half the #### you say then.. yikes. You're a lot dumber than you sound.
MelBridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2019, 03:47 PM   #645
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman View Post
Perspective!

What perspective? A whole bunch of stuff that completely contradicts almost everything you say, or the very small snippet where Chomsky is critical of the focus on the Russian interference in the election? Let's take apart what he's saying.


First he talks about the Trump phenomena and what essentially caused Trump. Unlike the alt-right noise, suggesting the left is responsible for the creation of Trump (paging Cliff Fletcher), he suggests the establishment on the right is to blame. He says that for every radical and outlandish candidate that came along in the past - Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, etc. - the right wing establishment was able to crush each and every candidate. In 2016 this proved to be very difficult to do. He doesn't explain why this was the case in 2016, but moves on to a larger question. Allow me to mop up for Dr. Chomsky. The fragmented field, caused by the very large number of candidates running in the primaries, prevented the establishment from rallying around one single candidate and as a result failed to pick a horse. Instead, the most extreme horse's ass was given time to build a base with his outlandish behavior. Had the establishment unified behind a candidate earlier, they would have defeated Trump handily during the primaries. Failure to coalesce is what prevented the establishment from putting a controllable candidate in the general.

Second Chomsky speaks to why the crazy has gripped the nation, and it is a result of a slow shift to the right, with the Democrats leaving the working class behind, and assuming the position of the Reagan Republicans. The Republicans have shifted so far to the right that they are no longer on any sort of spectrum, they are off in new ideological territory (see Idiocracy). Chomsky explains that the big thinkers behind the American Enterprise Institute (Mann & Orenstein) have labelled the current Republican Party as a radical insurgency who have abandoned parliamentary politics.

Third he speaks to the reason Republicans have gone off the deep end and have moved on to represent a very small but powerful constituency. That constituency is the money brokers and king makes, like the Mercers, the Adelsons, the Kochs, the Singers, the Thiels, and so on. The Republicans have to payback these people who grant them power, and they do so by adopting policies and laws that line their benefactor's pockets. They feed the extremely wealth on the backs of the poor. It is wealth distribution, but it distributing the wealth to the wealthiest and taking the money from the poorest.

Fourth he talks about how the Republicans continue to grab power by using fake wedge issues to polarize and freeze complete voting blocks. They use issues like abortion to polarize Catholics in the north, and turn them into a consistent voting block. They use Christian oppression to mobilize the fundamentalists in the south as a consistent voting block. They use guns and the fear of gun confiscation as a issue to activate a very powerful voting block. They use racism to own the rural areas and freeze out a voting block. They do this under the pretense of supporting these issues, but in reality they don't give a #### about these issues, and only give lip service to puck up a voting block. People are just too stupid to recognize this, even when Republicans do nothing to gain traction on any of the issues they use as rally points. As long as Trump says stupid things, the dummies in the electorate will rally behind him, all while the McConnells and Ryans are ripping them off.

Next he goes to the issue I am sure you are pointing to, and suggesting perspective - Russian interference in election. Chomsky is thinking old world politics here, and in that context he is correct. The interference he thinks he saw would have been marginal. He points to Isreal's Nyet-and-Yahoo's appearance before congress as an example of true election interference, but this is only if you believe the electorate has interest in what was said by a leader in a speech to congress. The problem is that people don't look at issues through the intellectual lens that he does, they look at things through their own lens and much of that lens is established in social media.

Chomsky is looking at the issue through the incorrect lens. He needs to look at it through a lens he is not familiar with, nor prepared to explore. All of our Intelligence Community acknowledged that Russia interfered in our election. Political scientists, psychologists, and experts in the study of media all agreed the interference happened and had a significant effect on the outcome of the election. Social media was attacked and used as a force multiplier to divide and polarize. Because the conservative social media bubble is so tightly controlled the effect was massive. Lies and propaganda spread like wild fire and entrenched people's thinking into beliefs that were just flat out wrong. It continues to this day, and those people are an unmovable force. They are still a minority, but in a country where 3-5% of the voting population make the ultimate difference, they are still a large enough block to swing an election.

Chomsky is very accurate on a lot of things. He points out that the largest interference in the election process is the dark money that finds its way into the election cycle. The money from the uber-wealthy are what ultimate interfere in out elections and stack the outcomes in their advantage.

He is also 100% correct that the Democrats should not tie their horse to the

Russia investigation and the outcomes of that. This investigation will not rally voters to the side of those wanting to defeat Trump. It will only activate the Trump base and get them out in numbers. Instead, the Democrats should be focusing on important issues like Climate Change, healthcare, nuclear weapons control, and deregulation. Focus on the big issues that affect people from all walks of life regardless of political identification. Focus on those issues and you can drain voters away from the other block.

Chomsky is finally critical of the establishment Democrats, their focus, and ignorance of the young block coming up. He is 100% right. It is this young block that will make the difference and likely lead the way to victory. If the establishment doesn't get that, they may experience their own Trump moment as a guy like Buttigeig runs roughshod over their field as they try and decide who to throw their support behind. Hopefully they will learn that the people's choice is the one that matters, not that of the out-of-touch super delegates.

So which of that was the perspective you were trying to get people to be aware of? Because none of that is what you present of a regular basis.

Last edited by New Era; 04-28-2019 at 04:28 PM. Reason: Speeling sukcs
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2019, 03:59 PM   #646
MelBridgeman
Franchise Player
 
MelBridgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Perfect you did some research!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by icecube
It's really hard to tell sometimes if you're an alt right true believer or just a bigoted troll. Props if you're just a troll because you're not bad at it. But if you actually really believe half the #### you say then.. yikes. You're a lot dumber than you sound.
MelBridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 04:21 PM   #647
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman View Post
Perfect you did some research!

No, just watched the video you linked and pointed out it provided way more context to crush your trolling ass than it did to support any of your twisted narrative. But continue on. Maybe Tim Pool has something smarmy, uninteresting, and wholly inaccurate to say on a subject matter you'll find some way to link to this discussion.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2019, 04:47 PM   #648
PostandIn
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
No, just watched the video you linked and pointed out it provided way more context to crush your trolling ass than it did to support any of your twisted narrative. But continue on. Maybe Tim Pool has something smarmy, uninteresting, and wholly inaccurate to say on a subject matter you'll find some way to link to this discussion.
Savage.
PostandIn is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PostandIn For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2019, 07:05 PM   #649
direwolf
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Sounds like Trump's latest hillbilly Nuremberg rally was a doozy.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-rally-828399/

Quote:
During his unhinged monologue, the president said many ridiculous things that will sap your will to continue living in this nightmare dystopia, including: accusing mothers and doctors of executing newborns, calling the media “sick” and ex-FBI officials “scum,” claiming credit for the “sick” idea of sending undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities, and doing an impression of the Saudi king’s accent. Oh, and, of course, there were “Lock her up!” chants.

Speaking about abortion, Trump brought up a lie he’s been touting for a while: that newborn babies are “executed” by their mothers and doctors. He accused Democrats of “aggressively pushing extreme late-term abortion, allowing children to be ripped from their mothers’ womb right up until the moment of birth.”

Then, he went even further, saying, “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don’t think so.”

Never mind that what he said was patently, demonstrably false. It doesn’t matter because Trump’s goal (and the goal of anti-choice activists) is to strip women of bodily autonomy by any means necessary. And yes, that includes lying about women going through the harrowing experience of having a baby who cannot survive outside the womb.
direwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2019, 07:34 PM   #650
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PostandIn View Post
Savage.

Dan or Fred?
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 07:46 PM   #651
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
It's almost funny... The DoJ decides it cannot indict a sitting president. Congress is incapable of impeaching and convicting a sitting president unless the opposing party of the president happens to hold a super majority at the time. And Congress is incentivised to NOT impeach because the political cost is astronomical.
This is a concise yet accurate summary.

If you're not laughing at the absurdity of it all and tempted by nihilism in the face of this sort of thing, well, I just don't think you're being honest with yourself.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 04-29-2019, 06:02 AM   #652
DuffMan
Franchise Player
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 127.0.0.1
Exp:
Default

Lol @ Americans

https://twitter.com/statuses/1122821669737910272
__________________
Pass the bacon.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 07:38 AM   #653
BBQorMILDEW
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bankview
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
History will not judge this congress well. This may be the moment in American history where the viability of the electoral college is finally viewed as the failed compromise it was, and that the American empire breathed its last breath.
Unless Hillary won the 2016 election. Then the Electoral College would still be relevant right?
BBQorMILDEW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 08:24 AM   #654
PsYcNeT
Franchise Player
 
PsYcNeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBQorMILDEW View Post
Unless Hillary won the 2016 election. Then the Electoral College would still be relevant right?
The Electoral College has always sucked my dude
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm View Post
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
PsYcNeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 09:36 AM   #655
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBQorMILDEW View Post
Unless Hillary won the 2016 election. Then the Electoral College would still be relevant right?
That's a stupid question, and one that is loaded.

The electoral college hasn't been a good system since it was implemented. Democracy is supposed to be one person, one vote, and the individual who has the most votes wins. In the 2016 election, Clinton did cull the most votes of any candidate, so should have been elected President. The fly-over argument of unfair distribution of power is bull####. Population inequality was addressed in the design of the Senate, so there is no need for the electoral college. The electoral college was nothing more than inducement to get certain states to ratify the constitution, but that need is long gone and the electoral college does no longer address a need, unless gaming democracy is your need.

So, NO, whether Clinton won or lost is irrelevant to the discussion. The electoral college is flawed and broken system, regardless of the victor or the vanquished.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 04-29-2019, 10:13 AM   #656
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

To expand on the idea of the electoral college, it was put in place so low population states would not have to succumb to the power of the more populous voting states. The problem is that since the electoral college system was put into play, the states have had their way in deciding how their electoral college votes would be broken up, and how those votes would be cast. There is no ultimate consistency in the methodology, which makes the process a failure.

Most states give the electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. This is flawed, especially in very close elections where the vote is close to being split. For example, in Michigan, the election leaned in one direction by a mere 10,704 votes, but all 16 electoral college votes went one way. This does not even account for the remainder of the population who voted for a third party candidate. Their votes don't ultimately count.

If the electoral college used the popular vote in the state to determine the percentage of the votes awarded, that would make more sense. This would be the balance required within the system and make it more reflective of the population. In Michigan this would have resulted in a split of the votes to Clinton - 7.5632, Trump 7.6000. This would have accounted for the other segments of the population voting elsewhere and left .8368 of a vote unaccounted for in the actual race. This is more reflective of the will of the people and more in-line with a representative and functional system.

And yes, by using a system truly reflective of the population within the state to determine the split of the vote, it would have seen Clinton take the Presidency with 249.5286 votes to Trumps 241.3547, with the rest being considered spoiled.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 04-29-2019, 12:17 PM   #657
Blaster86
UnModerator
 
Blaster86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Vancouver, British Columbia.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Dan or Fred?

Ben.
__________________

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR EVERYBODY HERE TONIGHT.
WHO WANTS TO WALK WITH ELIAS?

Blaster86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 01:01 PM   #658
Maritime Q-Scout
First Line Centre
 
Maritime Q-Scout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: God's Country (aka Cape Breton Island)
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
To expand on the idea of the electoral college, it was put in place so low population states would not have to succumb to the power of the more populous voting states. The problem is that since the electoral college system was put into play, the states have had their way in deciding how their electoral college votes would be broken up, and how those votes would be cast. There is no ultimate consistency in the methodology, which makes the process a failure.

Most states give the electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. This is flawed, especially in very close elections where the vote is close to being split. For example, in Michigan, the election leaned in one direction by a mere 10,704 votes, but all 16 electoral college votes went one way. This does not even account for the remainder of the population who voted for a third party candidate. Their votes don't ultimately count.

If the electoral college used the popular vote in the state to determine the percentage of the votes awarded, that would make more sense. This would be the balance required within the system and make it more reflective of the population. In Michigan this would have resulted in a split of the votes to Clinton - 7.5632, Trump 7.6000. This would have accounted for the other segments of the population voting elsewhere and left .8368 of a vote unaccounted for in the actual race. This is more reflective of the will of the people and more in-line with a representative and functional system.

And yes, by using a system truly reflective of the population within the state to determine the split of the vote, it would have seen Clinton take the Presidency with 249.5286 votes to Trumps 241.3547, with the rest being considered spoiled.
In what your proposing (saying, using as an example) would the candidates get 7.5632 and 7.6000 votes respectively and have that added to x.xxxx and y.yyyy? Or would those totals be rounded? If rounded, how so? Closest whole number, down, or most votes up, the rest down?
__________________
Maritime Q-Scout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 04:15 PM   #659
TheIronMaiden
First Line Centre
 
TheIronMaiden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Somewhere in Time
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
History will not judge this congress well. This may be the moment in American history where the viability of the electoral college is finally viewed as the failed compromise it was, and that the American empire breathed its last breath.
Some will, sure but others will look back at this as the good ol days. There is no such thing as agreement in the field of history.
TheIronMaiden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 07:36 PM   #660
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout View Post
In what your proposing (saying, using as an example) would the candidates get 7.5632 and 7.6000 votes respectively and have that added to x.xxxx and y.yyyy? Or would those totals be rounded? If rounded, how so? Closest whole number, down, or most votes up, the rest down?
What I am proposing is that the electoral college votes are broken up in each state by the percentage of the vote earned. So if there are multiple candidates that earn votes, the ultimate percentage of that vote is factored into the electoral college. In a fictitious example, a state has 20 electoral college votes and five candidates running for President. Candidate A earns 50% percent of the vote. Candidate B earns 42.5%, candidate C earns 5%, candidate D earns 1.5%, and candidate E earns 1% of the vote. So the breakdown would be candidate A = 10 votes, candidate B = 8.5 votes, candidate C = 1 votes, candidate D = .3 votes, and candidate E = .2 votes. The votes are evenly distributed among all candidates and the real voting interests of the state's people's are represented in the breakdown of the electoral college votes as well.

In a real world example, I'll use the 1992 election where Clinton and Bush had Perot and Marrou as the major candidates. Clinton won the electoral college 370 to 168 over Bush. Clinton also carried the popular vote - 43.01 to 37.45 - but there is a significant chunk of the vote unaccounted for. Perot took 18.91% of the popular vote, but never registered in the electoral college. Almost 19% of the vote was not properly represented in the system that ultimately decided who the President was. That's crazy.

So in the system I'm suggesting that vote is ultimately represented and could have had a major impact on the final outcome. Clinton would have taken 230.5461 electoral college votes to Bush's 202.3491. Perot would have been a confounding factor with 101.5419 electoral college votes with the remainder being split across Marrou and minor candiates in each state. A much different result and much more reflective of the will of the people. The 1992 election appeared to be a landslide, but it was actually way closer that people remember. Blending state level popular vote with the electoral collage system gives a much better representation of the actual vote.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:43 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016