2016 Presidential Horse Race

[IrishBroker]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Republicans have 33 red-red legislatures (plus Nebraska) one shy of the # to call an Article V constitutional convention <a href="https://t.co/pPKADTLuDB">pic.twitter.com/pPKADTLuDB</a></p>— election accepter (@cd_hooks) <a href="https://twitter.com/cd_hooks/status/797480012446388225">November 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Article V Convention of the States FTW. #MakeAmericaFederalistAgain

The Liberty Amendments

1. Impose Congressional term limits
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
8. Limit eminent domain powers
9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

How can anyone be against any of these is beyond me...The reason we have so much money and corruption in our government is because we don't do these things now.

 

[wizards8507]

Touching on many points I made last week, here's The Week's Michael Brendan Dougherty with an article titled "What if we really can make America great again?":

"Why the GOP ought to cut wizards loose."

These working-class voters were former Obama supporters who continue to demand the redistribution of economic resources and opportunities. They were the people that thrilled to Trump when he said, in front of Ford executives, that if the automaker moved its plants from Detroit to Mexico, he'd hammer them with a 35 percent tariff. Trump must deliver for these people in his first term or they will return to the Democrats in 2020.

That's immoral.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Much of the "Rising American electorate" thesis--which argues that demographic trends will soon deliver Democrats an invincible majority--is predicated on the assumption that Hispanics will follow a similar political trajectory to African-Americans. But it looks like they're more likely to follow the Irish:

What about the future? Won’t America’s turn toward a majority-minority nation — which the census forecasts for 2044 — create an automatic Democratic majority? Much of that reasoning rests on the rising population of Hispanics and on an assumption, implicit in a term like “people of color,” that as Latinos age, settle, and move up the income and education ladder, as other minorities have done, they will remain loyal Democrats.

But there are signs that Hispanics are following a trajectory more similar to that of the Irish than African Americans. In the American National Election Study of the 2012 vote, Hispanic support for Obama was 70 percent among those with only a high school diploma but 55 percent among those with some college. (There is no similar data available yet for 2016.)

There is also a political divide between first-generation immigrants and American-born Hispanics. According to a Gallup poll in August, Clinton enjoyed a far greater edge over Trump among foreign-born Hispanics than among those born in the United States. According to a Pew poll, bilingual Hispanics were far more supportive of Clinton than those who speak only English.

And there is a further complication. As sociologist Richard Alba has contended, when Hispanics intermarry with whites, they often identify their children as white. These, of course, are elusive socio-political categories masquerading as racial or national designations, but the liberals who argue that a majority-minority nation will favor Democrats are basing their claim on how voters identify themselves.

 

[IrishinSyria]

How can anyone be against any of these is beyond me...The reason we have so much money and corruption in our government is because we don't do these things now.

Against term limits because I think expertise matters and I believe in giving the people more and not less choice.

Against reauthorization and review because I think the administrative costs would be huge and there's a value in consistency and certainty. Tough to do long term planning if you don't know whether or not there will be an SEC or FCC or EPA in 10 years. That being said, as a normative matter I think agencies should do more to cull outdated regulations.

I like the commerce clause.

 

[Irish#1]

Let this be a lesson to them – elections are decisions about national direction, yes, but sometimes they are a choice about the lesser of two evils. There is no safe space in general elections – you have to choose one or live with the consequences of the other. Donald Trump is going to be president. Today is the day to begin making sure that only lasts for four years.

You know I respect your opinion, but how do we really know HRC was the lesser of two evils? It appears many felt DT was. I think you need to give DT time to show if he is going to be a good or bad president. If you don't, I think your showing a blind allegiance to the democrats by making that statement.

 

[kmoose]

Against term limits because I think expertise matters

The problem with that is that the only "expertise" career politicians have is in politics. If you really want expertise, you want people who were working in a career field just recently.

 

[Irish#1]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Republicans have 33 red-red legislatures (plus Nebraska) one shy of the # to call an Article V constitutional convention <a href="https://t.co/pPKADTLuDB">pic.twitter.com/pPKADTLuDB</a></p>— election accepter (@cd_hooks) <a href="https://twitter.com/cd_hooks/status/797480012446388225">November 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Article V Convention of the States FTW. #MakeAmericaFederalistAgain

The Liberty Amendments

1. Impose Congressional term limits
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
8. Limit eminent domain powers
9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

Would love to see it, but will never happen. Been talk of term limits since I was a kid and probably way before I was born. The problem is once anyone gets elected, they find out how good they've got it and they don't want to give it up. Most don't want to give up the pay, benefits and have to start looking for a new job.

 

[wizards8507]

Would love to see it, but will never happen. Been talk of term limits since I was a kid and probably way before I was born. The problem is once anyone gets elected, they find out how good they've got it and they don't want to give it up. Most don't want to give up the pay, benefits and have to start looking for a new job.

That's the beauty of the Article V convention. The States can amend the Constitution out from under the Congress and the Congress can't say dick about it.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Projection?src=hash">#Projection</a><a href="https://t.co/663uRepCuR">pic.twitter.com/663uRepCuR</a></p>— Adam Baldwin (@AdamBaldwin) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/798203350491639809">November 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishBroker]

Against term limits because I think expertise matters and I believe in giving the people more and not less choice.

Against reauthorization and review because I think the administrative costs would be huge and there's a value in consistency and certainty. Tough to do long term planning if you don't know whether or not there will be an SEC or FCC or EPA in 10 years. That being said, as a normative matter I think agencies should do more to cull outdated regulations.

I like the commerce clause.

Expertise in what? I could grab any number of business men and they'd be more effective and efficient than our current reps (on either side)

That's straight BS. Overrated term when describing government officials.

And how can you give people "more" choices when the same guy/girl is in office for decades?


And maybe if said agencies were roughed up a bit, we'd actually see them run more efficiently. The problem with government is not lack of funding, but waste. It wouldn't kill us to hold them accountable once in a while. That protects us.

 

[connor_in]

During 60 Minutes interview DJT told any of his supporters who are harassing others to "Stop It!"

Do you think that PBO will do the same thing for the protestors at his 3:15 news conference? If not, what do you think its for?

 

[GoIrish41]

You know I respect your opinion, but how do we really know HRC was the lesser of two evils? It appears many felt DT was. I think you need to give DT time to show if he is going to be a good or bad president. If you don't, I think your showing a blind allegiance to the democrats by making that statement.

Perhaps it didn't come across in my post, but this is exactly what I told them. He is the president -- root for him to succeed. But keep in mind that success is almost certainly defined differently for those who did not vote Trump. Will he really be president for all the people?

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">High school students protesting <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash">#Trump</a> literally walked to the mall... What a powerful statement of privilege and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FirstWorldProblems?src=hash">#FirstWorldProblems</a> <a href="https://t.co/DtUFtj9dw2">pic.twitter.com/DtUFtj9dw2</a></p>— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/798216730048864256">November 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Seriously, any "students" still walking out of class today and forward are just using it as an excuse for a day off. I would say flunk them, but many (not all mind you) of their teachers are with them. (See the stories from last week of the numerous teachers crying in class with "I can't even..." moments in the classroms.)

 

[Cackalacky]

The problem with that is that the only "expertise" career politicians have is in politics. If you really want expertise, you want people who were working in a career field just recently.

Taking this another level further... How about Committees? Should Congressmen who serve on Committees have expertise in the scope of the Committee they are in?

For example, having Cruz and Inhoffe anywhere near a Science, Technology or Education Committee is ludicrous.
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/peL7Qecg3qQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Having Pelosi in the Appropriations committee is crazy.

<iframe width="836" height="471" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CaonAORDP-A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[wizards8507]

Taking this another level further... How about Committees? Should Congressmen who serve on Committees have expertise in the scope of the Committee they are in?

For example, having Cruz and Inhoffe anywhere near a Science, Technology or Education Committee is ludicrous. Having Pelosi in the Appropriations committee is crazy.

That's the kind of thinking that gets oil executives in Energy and Goldman Sachs burnouts in the Treasury. We're supposed to have a citizen-government.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Expertise in what? I could grab any number of business men and they'd be more effective and efficient than our current reps (on either side)

That's straight BS. Overrated term when describing government officials.

And how can you give people "more" choices when the same guy/girl is in office for decades?


And maybe if said agencies were roughed up a bit, we'd actually see them run more efficiently. The problem with government is not lack of funding, but waste. It wouldn't kill us to hold them accountable once in a while. That protects us.

Re: choice.

X is the pool of people willing to run for a particular office.

X-D is the number of people able to run for a particular office when you disqualify people (for example, through term limits).

X is always > or = to X-D

I realize this is simplistic and doesn't account for the advantages of incumbency. On the other side of the ledger, voters have more information about an incumbent than they have about a new candidate, so they're theoretically making a more informed choice.

 

[wizards8507]

Re: choice.

X is the pool of people willing to run for a particular office.

X-D is the number of people able to run for a particular office when you disqualify people (for example, through term limits).

X is always > or = to X-D

I realize this is simplistic and doesn't account for the advantages of incumbency. On the other side of the ledger, voters have more information about an incumbent than they have about a new candidate, so they're theoretically making a more informed choice.

I don't think anyone is advocating for single term limits. We have people who have been in the Senate since the Carter administration. That's insane.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The problem with that is that the only "expertise" career politicians have is in politics. If you really want expertise, you want people who were working in a career field just recently.

That seems like a choice that can be made by voters. I think there's a value to political expertise- understanding how everything works in Washington isn't valueless.

I think the optimal situation is to have a mix of seasoned politicians and new blood in congress. I don't think term limits can achieve that, unless you're talking about like 4 terms for the Senate or 10 terms for the house.

 

[Cackalacky]

That's the kind of thinking that gets oil executives in Energy and Goldman Sachs burnouts in the Treasury. We're supposed to have a citizen-government.

But should they not have some level of knowledge? How can one form an opinion arguing from a point of pure ignorance? I am all for ending the revolving door of Private and Federal government but there absolutely has to be some sort of legitimate pre-existing knowledge base.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I don't think anyone is advocating for single term limits. We have people who have been in the Senate since the Carter administration. That's insane.

And my argument would be that apparently their constituencies like them and (any) term limit seems like a blunt tool to address that problem. I'd point to a McCain as a guy whose been around forever but is a net positive influence.

 

[wizards8507]

That seems like a choice that can be made by voters. I think there's a value to political expertise- understanding how everything works in Washington isn't valueless.

I think the optimal situation is to have a mix of seasoned politicians and new blood in congress. I don't think term limits can achieve that, unless you're talking about like 4 terms for the Senate or 10 terms for the house.

Part of the issue is the lack of political engagement by the voters. Incumbents control the political machines in their states so it's very easy to get through the primaries unchallenged when nobody pays any attention until the general election, especially in a non-Presidential year. I understand that it's the voters' own fault for not being engaged, but those of us that do pay attention are often subject to the whims of the ignorant who vote based on what they're told by their union boss or their pastor.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Part of the issue is the lack of political engagement by the voters. Incumbents control the political machines in their states so it's very easy to get through the primaries unchallenged when nobody pays any attention until the general election, especially in a non-Presidential year. I understand that it's the voters' own fault for not being engaged, but those of us that do pay attention are often subject to the whims of the ignorant who vote based on what they're told by their union boss or their pastor.

Or their local talk radio host.

I mean you don't need to convince me that ignorant voters are a problem right now, but again- term limits seem like a blunt tool. Organize better and get people involved. Tea party proves it's possible. Tea party also proves it might not always be a good idea IMO.

 

[wizards8507]

But should they not have some level of knowledge? How can one form an opinion arguing from a point of pure ignorance? I am all for ending the revolving door of Private and Federal government but there absolutely has to be some sort of legitimate pre-existing knowledge base.

I think you're vastly over-estimating the level of expertise that exists in the congress even without term limits. I believe there are 10 CPAs in the Congress, for example, but every single member of the House and Senate lectures us on Carried Interest, the EITC, and NOL carry-forwards like they have any idea wtf they're talking about.

 

[Cackalacky]

I think you're vastly over-estimating the level of expertise that exists in the congress even without term limits. I believe there are 10 CPAs in the Congress, for example, but every single member of the House and Senate lectures us on Carried Interest, the EITC, and NOL carry-forwards.

And there are young earth creationists making Science and Tech policies.... I am saying I want to see more expertise or that it should be a requirement and we are lacking it currently. Yes term limits would hurt that I think. I think you are agreeing with me ...IDK not sure.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I think you're vastly over-estimating the level of expertise that exists in the congress even without term limits. I believe there are 10 CPAs in the Congress, for example, but every single member of the House and Senate lectures us on Carried Interest, the EITC, and NOL carry-forwards like they have any idea wtf they're talking about.

Do you really think this would improve with term limits? Like my read on the voting public's mood is not that we need more CPAs and expertise right now.

I'm in favor of anything that could lead to governance by technocrats. Technocracy? But I don't think this is that.

 

[RDU Irish]

That's the beauty of the Article V convention. The States can amend the Constitution out from under the Congress and the Congress can't say dick about it.

Increased power to the states should be in the interest of state legislators (b/c they get more power). The exact same reason these things would never pass through Congress is the reason the states should want to do it.

If there was a fraction of a clue in the general population that this was possible state legislators would get a ton of pressure to make it happen.

 

[wizards8507]

And there are young earth creationists making Science and Tech policies.... I am saying I want to see more expertise or that it should be a requirement and we are lacking it currently. Yes term limits would hurt that I think. I think you are agreeing with me ...IDK not sure.

Do you really think this would improve with term limits? Like my read on the voting public's mood is not that we need more CPAs and expertise right now.

I'm in favor of anything that could lead to governance by technocrats. Technocracy? But I don't think this is that.

I agree with what you guys are saying in theory, but I think you're ignoring how it plays out in practice. Anything we gain from experienced legislators is more than offset (IMO) by the corruption that's allowed to fester with career politicians and their crony friends.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Minnesota driver at .33 BAC blames crash on anger over Trump's victory <a href="https://t.co/DnuAg2wnMC">https://t.co/DnuAg2wnMC</a> <a href="https://t.co/bW7wZhi2Vo">pic.twitter.com/bW7wZhi2Vo</a></p>— Star Tribune (@StarTribune) <a href="https://twitter.com/StarTribune/status/798224037461762048">November 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is simple: Trump cannot CANNOT be allowed a term in office. It's not about 2018. It's about RIGHT NOW</p>— Joss Whedon (@joss) <a href="https://twitter.com/joss/status/798090898324103168">November 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Whiskeyjack]