That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Eh, even taking it at face value, that's 200 years of filibusterEl Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:42 pm Not actually true. We have the filibuster because Aaron Burr mistakenly thought that the majority motion to end debate was superfluous.
That's enough to set a culture.El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:42 pmNot actually true. We have the filibuster because Aaron Burr mistakenly thought that the majority motion to end debate was superfluous.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:35 pmFundamentally true, but the Senate has always been kind of obstructionist in nature. It's why there is a filibuster.
We have many received wisdoms about the filibuster. However, most of them are not true. The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the founding fathers’ constitutional vision for the Senate: It is said that the upper chamber was designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body that cherished minority rights. In this version of history, the filibuster was a critical part of the framers’ Senate.
However, when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake. Let me explain.
The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.
What happened to the Senate’s rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.
Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to.
Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.
I think we're going to find out eventually. The problem's only going to get worse, and the best part is that the Constitution even says that an amendment can't change equal representation in the Senate without the consent of the relevant state(s). So we can't even fix or adjust the problem that way!noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:48 pmYou're seeing some of that now with the states that want to sent their electorate for the presidential candidate with the highest popular vote.El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:38 pm I should say so! Sort of like how if they put me in charge of policy for the city of Boston, that would be unfair, but like I'm sure I wouldn't protest too much right?
But like, if you agree that the distribution is untenable, and incidentally is only going to get worse for the foreseeable future...what do you think should be done about that? Obviously I understand that the people of Wyoming and other small states wouldn't like any change that reduces their power (nobody likes that!). But like, there's also a limit to how long the people of California, Texas, and New York and the like are going to be ok with subsidizing other states while having a disproportionately small influence over how their money is spent.
So...what do we do about it?
It would be interesting if the biggest states did decide it wasn't working. And while Texas is looked as as deeply Red, it's really not. Since 2000, the voting for a Democratic president went from 38% to 46.5%.
But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with AOC
I'm not arguing for a one-party system, and I'd never argue that the Democrats are without flaws. But the combination of a retrograde culture being stoked by (deceptively faulty (Southern Strategy) or woefully ignorant (Heller - but I have to think Scalia knows better - he just didn't care) - take your pick) appeals to what America "really is/was" and a system that gives those voices unequal influence is just..bad. It's all built on a throne of lies.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:40 pmHow's that going for you in Democratically controlled cities? More crime, more segregation, more financial inequality, etc, etc.geezer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:33 pm Who they can hire or fire? Yes, you can't fire someone for being black. Or gay, or female. Is that really where you want to make a stand? Or masks? An utterly harmless action. Taxes? Welcome to time eternal. "Render unto Caesar..." and all that.
Point being, Malchoir is right - so much of it *is* "hokum." There's are reasons why things went more smoothly before the civil rights era. Before the "southern strategy." Before Roe. And those reasons are that before those things happened, people were free to treat other people abhorrently without consequence, and that there was no one out there stoking the anger over the "loss" of those "freedoms" for political advantage. Are you gonna make me drag out the Lee Atwater quote?
I mean, I know you'll say if everyone would just vote Democratic Party it would all go away, but if I'm afraid of the government, that's not a very compelling argument.
They're all moving to Idaho first.El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:54 pmI think we're going to find out eventually. The problem's only going to get worse, and the best part is that the Constitution even says that an amendment can't change equal representation in the Senate without the consent of the relevant state(s). So we can't even fix or adjust the problem that way!noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:48 pmYou're seeing some of that now with the states that want to sent their electorate for the presidential candidate with the highest popular vote.El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:38 pm I should say so! Sort of like how if they put me in charge of policy for the city of Boston, that would be unfair, but like I'm sure I wouldn't protest too much right?
But like, if you agree that the distribution is untenable, and incidentally is only going to get worse for the foreseeable future...what do you think should be done about that? Obviously I understand that the people of Wyoming and other small states wouldn't like any change that reduces their power (nobody likes that!). But like, there's also a limit to how long the people of California, Texas, and New York and the like are going to be ok with subsidizing other states while having a disproportionately small influence over how their money is spent.
So...what do we do about it?
It would be interesting if the biggest states did decide it wasn't working. And while Texas is looked as as deeply Red, it's really not. Since 2000, the voting for a Democratic president went from 38% to 46.5%.
But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with AOC
Ironically one of the "easiest" fixes would be to get roughly a million Californians to move to Wyoming (and a million Texans to move to Delaware, etc.). And you know what would really end the rural way of life in Wyoming? A million Californians moving there.
Man you are going to die on these fake hills aren't you. More segregation? Rural areas are self-segregated. White flight was a very real thing. Still even in suburbs and 'exurbs' within cities white people are self-segregating themselves. Still how has that anything to do with Democratic governance? They aren't actively encouraging it.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:40 pmHow's that going for you in Democratically controlled cities? More crime, more segregation, more financial inequality, etc, etc.geezer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:33 pm Who they can hire or fire? Yes, you can't fire someone for being black. Or gay, or female. Is that really where you want to make a stand? Or masks? An utterly harmless action. Taxes? Welcome to time eternal. "Render unto Caesar..." and all that.
Point being, Malchoir is right - so much of it *is* "hokum." There's are reasons why things went more smoothly before the civil rights era. Before the "southern strategy." Before Roe. And those reasons are that before those things happened, people were free to treat other people abhorrently without consequence, and that there was no one out there stoking the anger over the "loss" of those "freedoms" for political advantage. Are you gonna make me drag out the Lee Atwater quote?
Man. You are so far off the track here. Income inequality is only worse in cities (and it's only a thin margin between them) because comparatively everyone is poorer in a narrower band in rural areas.More financial inequality?
No one should or would say that because it is pure straw man. We were served well in the past stability-wise when we had two rational parties. Even if we had many problems. Now we have one party interested in governing and we have another chasing these fake issues trying to stoke an autocratic kleptocracy. But yeah keep railing on the Democrats and these ridiculous arguments for disproportionate representation.I mean, I know you'll say if everyone would just vote Democratic Party it would all go away, but if I'm afraid of the government, that's not a very compelling argument.
I'm not dismissing their rights - other than their right to have 70X more representation than a citizen in California. Why are rural voices so much more important than those who live in more populated areas?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:44 pm This dismissive attitude of their rights is exactly why they are so afraid of the government.
Because that's what we agreed to when we allowed them to join the Union.Exodor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:45 pmI'm not dismissing their rights - other than their right to have 70X more representation than a citizen in California. Why are rural voices so much more important than those who live in more populated areas?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:44 pm This dismissive attitude of their rights is exactly why they are so afraid of the government.
Yes, sure. Small towns are absolutely famous for their red-lined areas and China-towns.malchior wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:29 pmMan you are going to die on these fake hills aren't you. More segregation? Rural areas are self-segregated. White flight was a very real thing. Still even in suburbs and 'exurbs' within cities white people are self-segregating themselves. Still how has that anything to do with Democratic governance? They aren't actively encouraging it.
But it's worse, and I'd be curious how you decide it's a thin margin. I'm definitely inferring here, but according to the Census Bureau, median income is 4% less in rural areas, but the poverty rate is lower too. Add in cost of living and it would seem to be no comparison.Man. You are so far off the track here. Income inequality is only worse in cities (and it's only a thin margin between them) because comparatively everyone is poorer in a narrower band in rural areas.
Completely different conversation. Nobody here is defending the current Republican party. Furthermore, I'm not arguing for disproportionate representation.No one should or would say that because it is pure straw man. We were served well in the past stability-wise when we had two rational parties. Even if we had many problems. Now we have one party interested in governing and we have another chasing these fake issues trying to stoke an autocratic kleptocracy. But yeah keep railing on the Democrats and these ridiculous arguments for disproportionate representation.
Aren't you, though? What would you change about the Senate, if you're not?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:35 pm
Completely different conversation. Nobody here is defending the current Republican party. Furthermore, I'm not arguing for disproportionate representation.
What the heck does this even mean?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:35 pmYes, sure. Small towns are absolutely famous for their red-lined areas and China-towns.malchior wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:29 pmMan you are going to die on these fake hills aren't you. More segregation? Rural areas are self-segregated. White flight was a very real thing. Still even in suburbs and 'exurbs' within cities white people are self-segregating themselves. Still how has that anything to do with Democratic governance? They aren't actively encouraging it.
It's not really me deciding. That has been the conventional opinion since the United States has been collecting data via the American Community Survey.But it's worse, and I'd be curious how you decide it's a thin margin. I'm definitely inferring here, but according to the Census Bureau, median income is 4% less in rural areas, but the poverty rate is lower too. Add in cost of living and it would seem to be no comparison.Man. You are so far off the track here. Income inequality is only worse in cities (and it's only a thin margin between them) because comparatively everyone is poorer in a narrower band in rural areas.
Give me a break with this. I have to say I really resent this comment. I'll be crystal clear here. I have no problem with differing opinions when they are rational and somewhat approximate reality.I'm arguing that you, malchior specifically, should try to understand why people might possibly have a different philosophy than you.
Exactly my thoughts. I'm really confused here.El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:34 pmAren't you, though? What would you change about the Senate, if you're not?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:35 pm
Completely different conversation. Nobody here is defending the current Republican party. Furthermore, I'm not arguing for disproportionate representation.
You could have sworn wrong. Unless you are referring to some country other than the US?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:09 pmI could have sworn gun control was a thing.malchior wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:01 pmThis sounds like a whole lot of hokum to me. Who is telling them they have to be like city folk? What are the consequences when they don't act like city folk? Again I'm looking for something more than the empty stuff that Fox is pumping at them. I get they think this way but I can't help but think this is more the result of misinformation and concerted propaganda than something real.
What is the Canadian model?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:05 am I don't have any idea how to fix the Senate other than removing the filibuster which I mentioned earlier and having the president popularly elected. The Canadian model would be an option if you could divide the regions correctly, but that's probably impossible. I'm certainly open to ideas.
Each region gets the same number of Senators (24) with the big provinces (Quebec/Ontario) being a whole region. The smaller ones like Nova Scotia are grouped up.El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:08 amWhat is the Canadian model?noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:05 am I don't have any idea how to fix the Senate other than removing the filibuster which I mentioned earlier and having the president popularly elected. The Canadian model would be an option if you could divide the regions correctly, but that's probably impossible. I'm certainly open to ideas.
And you missed my point. Income equality is compressed in that population. The top is much closer to the bottom in rural areas because *everyone* is poor. It is a different profile than the metro pattern. Edit: Though are some GINI calculations that show rural is worse to be fair so there is some debate about it but then again GINI itself is constantly debated.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:05 am @malchior - I have no issue believing poverty is higher in rural areas, but income inequality is about the top vs the bottom; not just the bottom.
Like I said I resent this immensely and it is completely unfair. I also think it is hypocritical considering a pattern of failure to acknowledge several counters to your arguments. In fact, several of us have pointed out basic problems/issues with your arguments. You seem to just blow past the response and just attack wherever you perceive a weakness. And I don't know if it is true or not but you seem to be just on the attack.Also, I love your caveat "I have no problem with differing opinions when they are rational and somewhat approximate reality" which really has seemed to translate over the late two or three years to, "if I agree with you."
So shot Hamilton in a duel and killed him, and incidentally and oh so ironically is responsible for the political maneuver that's going to play a YUUUUUGE part in killing our country too.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:50 pmEh, even taking it at face value, that's 200 years of filibusterEl Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:42 pm Not actually true. We have the filibuster because Aaron Burr mistakenly thought that the majority motion to end debate was superfluous.
New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has tested positive for COVID-19 and is recovering at home — just over a week since she was spotted partying without a mask in Florida, her office said Sunday.
“Representative Ocasio-Cortez has received a positive test result for COVID-19. She is experiencing symptoms and recovering at home,” the statement said.
Miami for New Year? You don't think she was partying? Even the tame stuff (video in Post) is a crowded photo op at a drag brunch. That's party time. All with zero masks because it's Florida. And now she has COVID.
Are you saying the function was for drag queens? I didn't see an indication of that.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:05 pmMiami for New Year? You don't think she was partying? Even the tame stuff (video in Post) is a crowded photo op at a drag brunch.
The entertainment on stage was drag. The attendees weren't (necessarily) in drag. This wasn't a quiet hotel brunch or something.Jaymann wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:27 pmAre you saying the function was for drag queens? I didn't see an indication of that.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:05 pmMiami for New Year? You don't think she was partying? Even the tame stuff (video in Post) is a crowded photo op at a drag brunch.
I was trying to figure out those other two photos with the (outdoors) drag bar. The article didn't provide context for them and did say something about AOC tweeting something about the GOP using old photos.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:05 pm Miami for New Year? You don't think she was partying? Even the tame stuff (video in Post) is a crowded photo op at a drag brunch. That's party time. All with zero masks because it's Florida. And now she has COVID.
This is how the machine changes you. She'll be Pelosi in 10 years.
I wish we had more masses here. I think it was irresponsible to attend such an event during COVID, but even more irresponsible for Florida to have no restrictions.LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:32 pmI was trying to figure out those other two photos with the (outdoors) drag bar. The article didn't provide context for them and did say something about AOC tweeting something about the GOP using old photos.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:05 pm Miami for New Year? You don't think she was partying? Even the tame stuff (video in Post) is a crowded photo op at a drag brunch. That's party time. All with zero masks because it's Florida. And now she has COVID.
This is how the machine changes you. She'll be Pelosi in 10 years.
That said, Miami for NYE. You'll have a hard time convincing me she went to Miami for NYE with her boyfriend for some quiet isolated time away from DC or her home district, especially as she, you know, caught COVID.
I don't know that it's the machine that changed her. We live in our bubbles and tell ourselves what we want to hear to justify what we do. As the masses here will defend her heading to Miami to have quiet breakfast with boyfriend as not irresponsible.
The New York State attorney general, Letitia James, accused Donald J. Trump’s family business late Tuesday of repeatedly misrepresenting the value of its assets to bolster its bottom line, saying in court papers that the company had engaged in “fraudulent or misleading” practices.
The filing came in response to Mr. Trump’s recent effort to block Ms. James from questioning him and two of his adult children under oath as part of a civil investigation of his business, the Trump Organization. Ms. James’s inquiry into Mr. Trump and the company is ongoing, and it is unclear whether her lawyers will ultimately file a lawsuit against them.
Oh, MAGAtNation remembers, I can assure you.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:20 pm It's important to remember that the initial evidence for this investigation came out of testimony AOC elicited under Oath during hearings.
The New York State attorney general, Letitia James, accused Donald J. Trump’s family business late Tuesday of repeatedly misrepresenting the value of its assets to bolster its bottom line, saying in court papers that the company had engaged in “fraudulent or misleading” practices.
The filing came in response to Mr. Trump’s recent effort to block Ms. James from questioning him and two of his adult children under oath as part of a civil investigation of his business, the Trump Organization. Ms. James’s inquiry into Mr. Trump and the company is ongoing, and it is unclear whether her lawyers will ultimately file a lawsuit against them.
And it isn't even winter yet.A group of 30 House liberals is urging President Biden to dramatically shift his strategy on the Ukraine war and pursue direct negotiations with Russia, the first time prominent members of his own party have pushed him to change his approach to Ukraine.
The letter, sent to the White House on Monday and first reported by The Washington Post, could create more pressure on Biden as he tries to sustain domestic support for the war effort, at a time when the region is heading into a potentially difficult winter and Republicans are threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they retake Congress.
In a letter led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the 30 Democrats call on Biden to pair the unprecedented economic and military support the United States is providing Ukraine with a “proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire.”
The Democrats are specifically concerned that the United States is not engaging in regular dialogue with Russia as part of its effort to end a protracted war that has caused thousands of deaths and displaced 13 million people. The Biden administration has been adamant that it is up to Kyiv whether and when to negotiate with Russia, arguing that Ukrainians as a free people should decide their fate.
But some Russia experts say Moscow will only negotiate with the United States, a fellow superpower. The lawmakers say that opening must be seized given the war’s spreading devastation, adding, “The alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.”
The liberal Democrats note that the war’s disastrous consequences are increasingly felt far beyond Ukraine, including elevated food and gas prices in the United States and spikes in the price of wheat, fertilizer and fuel that have created global food shortages, not to mention the danger of a nuclear attack by Moscow.
...
The letter was signed by some of the best-known and most outspoken liberal Democrats in Congress, including Reps. Jamie Raskin (Md.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Ro Khanna (Calif.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.).
