BootmanLA

It's not that simple, no, but it's more like: make them feel anxious about their slipping economic status, then tell them it's all because the Democrats are focused on performing gender changes in elementary schools and giving millions in welfare money to illegal immigrants and drug-dealing pimps and the like. Combining their discomfort with (fill in the blank: racial minorities, non-subservient women, LGBTQ people, etc.) and their economic frustrations over not being able to buy a house because the wealthy are hoarding such a huge share of the nation's GDP is a winning tactic. The emotional appeal to their innate prejudices, even if they don't think they're THAT bigoted amplifies the economic message beyond any semblance of reality. No, Musk could not have "earned" 13 million dollars in one night. He might or might not have "made" that much profit on some investment, or as part of his enormously bloated Tesla pay package, but no one "earns" 13 million dollars in one day (or night). Nothing anyone can do is actually worth that sum of money for one day's effort. Nothing.

It's possible they "feel" that way, which is unfortunate, because the Biden administration was one of the most pro-worker admins in recent history, and certainly there's no way Mango Mussolini is going to deliver on any of his promises to them. Just wait till Trump starts rounding up immigrants for mass deportation. The jobs they do are jobs his followers absolutely will not do, and as Alabama found out some years back, food is going to just rot in the fields and on the trees because there's no one available to harvest it. Talk about food price inflation.

And to paraphrase a British gentleman of the early twentieth century: "The lamps are going out all over America; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time."

I think he's predicting the EV totals for Trump and Harris, respectively, and that Trump will win the popular vote. Frightening a prospect as that is, the EV totals may well be close (if Trump takes the remaining swing states as of this posting, those may be exactly right). However, at this point, more than half of California's vote is still out, as is more than a third of Washington state's and almost a third of Oregon's (all heavily Democratic), which will cut into Trump's popular vote lead considerably and may eliminate it. At this point, though, it's possible all three predictions will be correct.

Well, there's the official answers, and then there's the reality on the ground. I'm confident that most of the court attacks would be dismissed as rapidly as they were in 2020, for lack of evidence. And in several of the "swing" states from 2020 - ones that flipped from Trump to Biden - the laws about voting were updated to reflect court decisions handed down then. In those cases, the law will be even easier to apply, because the legislature will have spoken and blessed certain things (like drop boxes in a given state). And where the 2020 decision hinged on the meaning of a phrase in the law, those decisions would be precedential for challenges this time. So, for instance, if the highest court in a state ruled that a law requiring that a mail ballot be "cast" by a given date to be counted means that the ballot had to be placed in the post office box by that date, then that ruling would apply in 2024 too. That is, unless the partisanship of the state's highest court has changed for the worse and the judges go "rogue" and overturn their own prior ruling. That's the bigger concern: in 2020, the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, turned away pretty much every challenge Trump filed. Very few of those cases even got to a full-blown hearing and trial because they were dismissed for lack of standing, failure to state a legitimate claim, and so forth. Generally, those kind of dismissals don't have precedential value on the actual merits of the case. So another federal judge could decide that, in fact, claiming X about the ballot counting process *IS* a legitimate claim, and tie up that state's votes in court. That said, no court actually required any state to not certify its electors or to let them vote, and I honestly don't see a path forward for that this time either. That has to be balanced against the Electoral Count Act, which is what governs how state electoral votes are handled. That law was tightened in 2022 after the contentious aftermath of the 2020 election, and it's harder now to challenge electoral votes in Congress. One of the key changes was that under the old law, one senator and one representative could together challenge any state's electoral votes, and then they had to stop the count, go debate in each chamber separately, and then return and vote. That can take many hours if several states are challenged. Under the new version of the law, one-fifth of each chamber must vote to challenge, or 20 senators AND 87 representatives. There certainly will be that many Republicans, but even so, most are unlikely to actually vote to challenge. So in sum, I think the ability to challenge the votes legally has shrunk. But we can't rule out shenanigans on the Trump campaign's part. We can only hope the system holds. One thing's for sure: I'd much rather have OUR lawyers on the case than the rag-tag bunch of losers Trump tends to have working for him; many of his attorneys from 2020 have either been disbarred or at least suspended from the practice of law.

Sadly, it took until today, four days before his third election attempt, for the perfect nickname for the GOP candidate to arrive: Sweet Potato Hitler.

There's a lot of "fake news" out there, yes. But generally speaking, businesses don't go to the trouble of advertising a resort and taking bookings online if they don't actually exist. And of course there's NO chance that random strangers on a sex-oriented website wouldn't mislead you about places to stay, right? </sarcasm>

Google is your friend. [think before following links] https://www.google.com/search?q=male-only+gay+resorts+in+Europe&oq=male-only+gay+resorts+in+Europe&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORigATIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigAdIBCDYxOTFqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Agreed, though it's not just heterophobia at work. Some tops call it "pussy" because they think it's degrading for the bottom to be compared to a woman, and frankly, I have no patience for that. If a man's purpose in calling my asshole "pussy" is to establish some sort of dominance, then my hole isn't for him. (It's not the dominance I object to; it's the equating submission with female genitalia that I won't tolerate.) That said, if it works for two other people, more power to them.

FWIW even then I don't believe in outing such people, unless they are actively trying to harm the LGBT community (or any part of it). We're allowed to pass for straight in most of society but "let our hair down" (metaphorically speaking) among our own kind. At least in my view.

Government is how society, well, governs itself. Our Declaration of Independence (which, contrary to popular belief, is not a basis of law in this country, but a general statement of principle) itemizes assorted rights people possess, and then goes on to say "That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Government is literally how we ensure that our rights are upheld (and concomitantly, our responsibilities that go along with those rights are met). Not everyone benefits from everything government does. That's in the nature of societies and their governments. This is indeed an instance of "absence of specific examples". You cite a lot of alleged evils, but no concrete examples of them. But in any event, eminent domain, for one, is specifically authorized in our constitution; private property can be seized for a public purpose for just compensation. As for citizen rights: I guarantee you that our system of government, flawed as it is, does more to protect citizen rights than most, and far more than any "Lord of the Flies" libertarian paradise. I'm fine with cutting back wealth transfers to the rich. Hell, I'm in favor of reverting to the tax rates we had when our country's middle class was at its peak, which is to say, around 70%. I'd apply that rate to unearned income too, instead of cushy capital gains rates for the investor class. I'm also in favor of not legislating morality (though I think it might mean something different to you than it does to me, I'm not sure). I see the benefits of society maximized when all members of the society who contribute have their basic needs met. That means the guy who gets up at 430 AM to go get on a garbage truck to collect our refuse ought to be able to support himself and his family, as should the person who busses the tables at the restaurant down the block and the person who cleans the hotel rooms at the nearby resort. And that means all of them get health care, and adequate food and housing.

Oh you have a much better grasp of our constitutional amendment process than a lot of Americans! 🙂 And a better understanding than I have of yours, which is almost (but not quite) zero.

You seem to have a very creative mind, imagining what I "seem to think." I assure you that you do not, in fact, understand my thoughts. I made a statement of fact: that if the government decides it wants to take someone out, it's got the firepower to do it, regardless of whatever the courts might later find. I understand gun ownership just fine. What I particularly understand, and what too many "Don't Tread On Me" people seem to not understand, is that there simply isn't enough civilian firepower to overthrow our government via some sort of armed rebellion. That doesn't mean I think anyone should lay down his gun; that's his choice to do. I'm only pointing out that it won't do what so many of them think it will. I have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here. I've never pretended this site has anything to do with "normies" (whatever you think those are). I'm not a spokesperson for society. I'm an observer of society and a spokesperson for me. But I recognize that intrinsic in the nature of 'society' is a lot of give-and-take (call it curtailing of freedoms if you like) in order to live together amicably. The tradeoff is the benefit we get from our interdependent nature in the society. People are certainly free to create their own lives. But if they want the benefits of living in a society, they have to follow the rules of that society, where those exist. In theory, a constitution sets boundaries around which the members of the society may or may not impose rules, and those rules are imposed by one's representatives (if they're legally binding) or by one's neighbors (if they're merely social constructs). The problem I have with many "libertarian" type individuals is that they want all the benefits of living in a society that others, for the most part, created, but they don't want to have to follow the conventions and rules of that society.

But we may regret an ordinary vote tomorrow even if we cast it today. We may regret skipping a race thinking none of the candidates are good enough, only to realize that the winner was the worst of the bunch. And so on. There will always be post-election regrets. I'm sure a metric shit-ton of people in PA, MI, and WI regretted not voting in 2016 thinking Trump couldn't win. But we don't design systems to account for regret. If anything, having ranked voting means we can hedge our bets against a really bad turnout, which would increase, not decrease, my satisfaction with my vote.

Not exactly. For starters, a constitutional amendment could start in either the House or the Senate - it doesn't have to go to the House first. However, it must pass each chamber by a 2/3 vote (in the same form, meaning if there are amendments, they have to agree on a compromise version and vote on that, on both sides, again, and get a 2/3 vote again). In the Senate, that means 67 votes. In the House, it means 290 votes. Second, constitutional amendments do not require approval by the president. The constitution requires that after approval by both chambers of Congress, it's submitted to the legislatures of the various states. The president plays no role. Third, it does not have to be ratified by "all" the states - it requires 2/3 of the states, or 38.

And yet we do that all the time, in everyday life. "I want to get burgers for lunch today, but if most of y'all don't want that, my second choice is Chinese. What I really don't want is Indian." And so on. We rank our favorite flavor from a group. We rank our favorite songs from a list. It requires a bit of thought, yes. But that shouldn't be a deal-killer, especially if it results in the candidate who's most acceptable to the most people winning.

In theory. But it would require a constitutional amendment, and the GOP could never get that through 3/4 of state legislatures, even if they somehow managed to get 2/3 of each chamber of congress to agree (which they also would not).

Even worse: once the useless land given to the indigenous people turned out to be not so useless after all (see: Oklahoma and oil fields), we promptly began a campaign to steal that away, too.

In other words: you want all of the benefits of societal living - the things we can accomplish when we all have to live and work together - with the freedom to reject all the ones you don't like, even if you're still drawing on the benefits of the society. In other words, you're like the libertarian cat: totally convinced of its own superiority and its complete exemption from all rules it doesn't want to obey but completely incapable of opening the can of food for itself, so it stands at the food bowl and screams for attention.

He's got a point. You don't see leftie boys demanding that Reich Whingers stay out of our discussions; we're able to take the back and forth. It's only some self-styled conservatives, who no doubt think of themselves as "alphas", who are such delicate little snowflakes that they need a safe space to compliment each other on their bona fides as sociopaths.

Who said I was advertising for the government? I said that the member who brashly asserted that he was armed (in case the government came after him) was deluding himself if he thought whatever arms he had would stand up against the US government, if it were determined to take him out. That's not endorsing or condemning the government: it's stating a fact. For starters, I believe in practical decisions. I don't think it's practical to uproot an entire system (bad as it may be) in favor of some untried "voluntarism" project in the name of some purist approach to "don't tread on me". In any event, you're free to skip insurance in this country. Thanks to Orange Julius, there's no penalty for not having health insurance (at least, not a penalty on the skipper; the entire community is penalized when the skipper shows up at the ER and public resources are needed to treat him). So I don't get what kind of "freedom" you seem to think is being "usurped".

Oh, I'm not saying the Branch Davidian thing wasn't an abuse of power. But my point is that they were armed, and it did them absolutely no good. People who think the second amendment is really about being able to face down a hostile government military are clueless twits: the military could obliterate every one of them without any loss of life on the government's side, if it so chose. The second amendment today is really about small-dicked insecure boy-men wanting a substitute penis that shoots bullets in rapid fire rather than semen, to prop up their fragile egos. That sounds great until you start to implement it. Which activities call for voluntarism, and which ones get covered by the general public/pool? 12,000 people die every year falling down stairs, with many, many thousands more injured, many requiring hospitalization for broken limbs, etc. Do we require "voluntarism" pools for everyone who needs to go to the second story of a building without an elevator? Why, or why not? At what level do we deem risk great enough to exclude it from coverage under general policies, and require those who take that risk to seek separate coverage or risk sharing?

Correct. There's still some legal debate as to what a "natural born citizen" is (does it mean citizen from birth, as most experts believe, or does it mean citizen born on US soil?). But Musk fits neither definition. Separately, I don't think Musk wants to be president, at least not of this country. It's too much like real work.

Here in the US, the 39/39 split you're talking about is irrelevant, because we don't have a parliamentary system and seats are allocated geographically. If the Democrats get 39% of the votes cast, that doesn't mean they get 39% of the seats in Congress. It could mean they get ZERO seats in Congress, depending on where those 39% of the votes fall. Within any particular congressional district (of which there are at least one, often more, per state), it's only the votes in that district which determine who that district's representative is. So within such a system, RCV here would work very differently than it apparently does in Australia. We also don't "form a government" because the president, who heads the executive branch, is elected separately from Congress, and so we don't have "ministers" heading up executive branch agencies. Those are run by presidential appointees, most of whom have to be confirmed by our Senate.