Quadrupling Down On The Stupid

What’s that old Napoleon adage ,”Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake”? I guess we can add the Einstein definition of insanity;

House Democrats re-elected Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday to lead them through the next two years of the incoming Trump administration, as the San Francisco Democrat fended off a challenge from Ohio’s Tim Ryan.

Ms “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” has led the democrats to 4 straight defeats in elections to control The House, this last one a blood bath so massive as to make Quentin Tarantino upchuck his breakfast. The logical response would be reflection, re calibration, a change of direction in course, nope, they are going to do the same thing over (times 4) and expect a different result.

But it’s worse than that. Mustering up some token resistance, they manage to find a Pelosi lite, some guy nobody heard of from the Midwest, a guy that has almost an identical voting record as Pelosi (Obamacare, check, stimulus, check, cap and trade, check, voting down the Keystone XL pipeline, check check). Missing the point as usual with these guys, geographical diversity is the goal, not ideological. So, they want the SF liberal back, fine by me. Improving the economy or the lives of average Americans will always take a back seat to Which Lives Matter Right Now.

It looks like democrats like their “swampy” environs just fine. Re-centralize the power, as if it wasn’t centralized already. The old way, reward loyalty with campaign cash and committee chairs, and punish those that do not fall in line, Tammany Hall politics at it’s finest.

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT

    I am loving what the left is doing to itself. Especially the establishment. I couldn’t have dreamed of anything causing these losers as much damage as their own actions leading up to and especially after this election have done to these bozos. Well deserved I add too.

    Here is looking at you Pelosi! Double down on the crazy, baby! That is what you idiots need moar of!

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000

    “Blue collar voters have revolted. What shall we do?”

    “I dunno. Let’s re-elected the 76 y/o San Francisco dingbat. Surely that will help.”

    Thumb up 1

  3. RonK

    did anyone think the outcome would be any different, Nancy is the product of machine politics from Baltimore no less, so I’m sure she has dirt on just about everyone in congress, or some goons will show up at you door. see Harry Reid

    Thumb up 0

  4. stogy

    Ms “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” has led the democrats to 4 straight defeats in elections to control The House, this last one a blood bath so massive as to make Quentin Tarantino upchuck his breakfast.

    And sure, the gerrymandering of congressional districts would have had nothing at all to do with that…

    In this year’s House elections, Democrats would have had to win the popular vote by at least 9 percentage points to take control. That is the largest partisan asymmetry on record. It would be reduced considerably if districting were done according to principles that treated both parties equally.

    Thumb up 1

  5. richtaylor365 *

    The lame and non factual “gerrymandering” argument, some things never change.

    Blame the democrats for gathering (birds of a feather) in urban areas and college towns, blame the Voting Rights Act, blame majority minority voting districts which shields democrat voters from any kind of gerrymandering. Face it, while Trump lost the popular vote, House Republicans got 3 million more votes this year then Democrats.

    The last time the dems got the House, they recruited moderates in those districts not already protected, so much for that play book. Since 2010 the blue dogs (centrists, no wonder they feel abandoned) has lost three fourths of its members. But yeah, better to keep Peloisi and her thoroughly entrenched hierarchy, I’m sure it will work the next time.

    Thumb up 0

  6. stogy

    The lame and non factual “gerrymandering” argument, some things never change.

    Er… you did read the link I provided, didn’t you? You do realize that there is fairly solid legal basis for a case against gerrymandering.

    House Republicans got 3 million more votes this year then Democrats.

    They did. However, the Dems lost the House in 2012, despite winning the popular vote by over a million (something you clearly believe is significant). And the Republican Party at the time not only claimed a mandate, but had the gall to bragg about how they had used the redistricting process to get control over the House (see “How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010 Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013”): 

    The rationale was straightforward… Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn.

    So it isn’t so much about sore losers as crass, unprincipled winners.

    Gerrymandering is just as bad for the Republicans too, as the party ends up with dead wood and entrenchment, and a tendency towards extremism. I can’t understand why you would support such a system.  After Trump’s allegations of electoral fraud, rumors of hacking, and deregistering of voters, electoral reform should be quite high on the list of priorities now.

    I also actually really hope that Jill Stein’s recounts turn up nothing, because there is no roadmap forward from here. I can’t see either side accepting a result that if there was evidence that the process had been corrupted.

    Thumb up 1

  7. richtaylor365 *

    Er… you did read the link I provided, didn’t you?

    Er…you did read the link I provided on majority minority voting districts, didn’t you? Democrat  enclaves are thoroughly protected from  redistricting, protections no GOP area has.

    Besides, don’t you see how whinny it sounds, you complaining about a procedure both sides are afforded, something the Democrats have been using for years and have benefited from it?

    It is interesting to hear the howls from the left when tactics they practiced and perfected are turned against them, something we will see next year when Harry Reid’s nuclear option is used against his own party, the very definition of “Hoist with his own petard”.

    Thumb up 1

  8. richtaylor365 *

     I can’t understand why you would support such a system.  

    I don’t support or not support it, I only recognize that it exists. Yes, on its face it looks smarmy, but many parliamentary procedures are smarmy…………and legal. Usually the party in power is the most corrupt and complicit, and the losing party the most vocal and cranky, but the ebb and flows (and court challenges) of politics over time levels the playing field.

    Thumb up 0

  9. stogy

    It is interesting to hear the howls from the left when tactics they practiced and perfected are turned against them,

    Actually, I am pretty sure I said the same thing – the electoral system needs to be fixed – back when Obama was first elected in 2008. I have been pretty consistently bipartisan about this all the way along.

    Thumb up 1

  10. richtaylor365 *

    Removed from the gerrymandering issue, what do you think about the real issue of the post, Pelosi staying on as speaker? Also, what do you think of Mr. ,”We need to separate the nation into 2 states, one for whites and one for blacks” Ellison as head of the DNC?

    The triumvirate of Pelosi, Clayburn, and Hoyer, all older than dirt, has run the House Democrats for 10 years, and what have they gotten from this failed leadership?

    And Elison, holy crap, could they find a more “out there” guy out there?

    Thumb up 0

  11. stogy

    Removed from the gerrymandering issue, what do you think about the real issue of the post, Pelosi staying on as speaker?

    I’m not a fan of Pelosi, nor of the Democratic Party in its current state. But nothing gets fixed until the big money and corporate lobbying gets shut out of politics. I’m not sure it could ever be done completely, but at least an attempt to move in that direction would be good. While Pelosi and Clayburn, and Hoyer, and others are still there, nothing will change. It wouldn’t have changed either if Hillary had been elected.

    Nor is anything likely to improve under Trump. He’s barely even pretending now.

    This is why  I see electoral reform as being the bigger issue now (rather party partisanship), because the current system undermines representation and corrupts politics.

    Thumb up 1

  12. stogy

    And sorry, that should be Clyburn, not Clayburn btw – all three of them are well past mid-seventies. Wouldn’t you think they would stand aside and let someone else have a go? They aren’t doing themselves any favors, let alone anyone else.

    Thumb up 1

  13. richtaylor365 *

    Nor is anything likely to improve under Trump. He’s barely even pretending now

    All a matter of perspective, ya see, I think he is not only trying, he is succeeding.

    The two biggest right leaning periodicals on the planet, WSJ and National Review, both came out early against Trump. If you remember, the NR came out with a hit piece where something like 21 of their most conservative authors, notable respectable names every one, cam out as Never Trump. Although the WSJ was more circumspect, they never endorsed Trump or took him seriously, now both are eating massive amount of crow.

    National Review 

    Let’s Not Jinx It, But This Incoming Cabinet Looks Pretty Darn Good So Far

    WSJ

    Trump’s A-Team

    The president-elect is assembling a who’s who of conservatives for his cabinet.

    I am very happy with his picks so far, and for you to say that he is not even pretending, well, you have zero objectivity and can not (on this issue anyway) be taken seriously.

    Thumb up 0

  14. stogy

    I was referring specifically to electoral reform, Rich.

    The President-elect alleged that millions of illegals voted against him but wouldn’t support any kind of process to determine whether that was true or not. And WSJ are celebrating because he is appointing Wall Street insiders, of course.

    As far as I’m concerned, that’s not even pretending anymore. I doubt there’s going to be a lot of swamp cleaning happening any time soon.

    Once again, I’m allowed to be critical. As you would be now had Hillary won.

    Thumb up 1

  15. richtaylor365 *

    I’m allowed to be critical

    Of course, but your critiques are meaningless because you have demonstrated no objectivity. Both the WSJ and NR were critical, very critical, but are fair minded enough to recognize some positives. Again, given your frame of reference, if you approved anything he did, I would be suspect.

    And  thestatement that the WSJ approves because he has hired wallstreeters, that is just dopey. No hires has any connection to the paper, or is it the fact that some words are similar? Just silly.

    Just to be clear, my bar for Trump is so low, anything positive will thrill me.

    Thumb up 0

  16. stogy

    So who among the current team would you see as having swamp-cleaning abilities, Rich? I see a lot of fixed interests and polarizing figures. But no-one who is going to attempt to break the corporate hold over Washington.

    And the WSJ panders to its own community, and looks after the interests of its owner. Like most media companies.

    Just to be clear, my bar for Trump is so low, anything positive will thrill me.

    On that we can agree. A bit harder to do a limbo under mine though.

    Thumb up 1

  17. stogy

    I’m sure there’s plenty for our resident liberals to criticize. 

    Here’s the problem: According to what I heard, Trump promised Carrier special  tax cuts,

    Based on Trump’s own stated logic (stated repeatedly during the campaign and in the debates), you would be a poor manager if you didn’t take advantage of rules/opportunities like this.

    If this is true, then suddenly every company that can will announce a plan to move to Mexico or India, so they can also get their special tax cut.

    You don’t see a problem with this?

    Thumb up 2

  18. stogy

    Interesting also that Carrier stuck the following caveat on the bottom of the press release you linked to, Icon:

    This agreement in no way diminishes our belief in the benefits of free trade and that the forces of globalization will continue to require solutions for the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. and of American workers moving forward.

    In other words, “we have no intention of sticking to this agreement long-term.” Just for nowsies, eh?

    Thumb up 2

  19. richtaylor365 *

    According to what I heard

    Since the details have not become public, whatever you heard is rumor only. But here is the rub for me, the government is not in the business of accommodating corporations (Hey, Solyndra anyone?). I want the corporate tax rate lowered pronto so that all companies can keep more of what they earn but Trump should not be promising Carrier special sweetheart tax deals unless they are given to all.

    So who among the current team would you see as having swamp-cleaning abilities

    Sure, I’ll give you one right out of the box, Betsy Devos.  The cacophony of howling from the teachers unions is deafening. It is these unions and their influence on democrats that has been the biggest impediment to our kids being able to compete globally in the market place, Betsy will indeed drain that polluted swamp.

    But I think you are missing the point, Trump is the conductor, the different cabinet members are all part of the orchestra, each musician is hired for their abilities, it is the conductor who has the vision, he determines what swamps are drained.

     

    Thumb up 0

  20. stogy

    Ok, so by hiring Mr Foreclosure, for example, Trump can use his unique talents in making a fortune off collapsing the middle class to… save the middle class?

    I mean, clearly he understands how the system works, but now he must use his talents for good rather than evil? Is that the thinking?

    How do we know he won’t just continue to follow the money?

    And by the way, lowering taxes has historically been shown not to result in much in the way of higher growth. Targeted tax breaks for investment in jobs and infrastructure would be preferable. Otherwise it just ends up feeding another housing bubble and speculation. People invest because there is money to be made, not because they have more money.

    Thumb up 1

  21. CM

    Trump campaigned thag companies would have to pay a tax for outsourcing jobs and now he’s already promising tax breaks instead. Has there been a President who has broken as many promises before even hating office?

    Solyndra was part of a Bush loan guarantee system that worked really well. Many many thousands of jobs created and around 97% of the companies did not go broke and require govt money.

    Thumb up 1

  22. CM

    That’s exactly right stogy – as Sanders is pointing out: this has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives. Of course Rich and Iconoclast would be ripping Obama a new one with this point if he had done it. Which is why the next four years is going to be hilarious. Remember when it was just a vote against Hillary for these guys? At least that’s what they claimed. Now for some reason they’re actively defending Trump, or at worst shrugging meekly when they disagree (again Obama would not get a shrug, he would be the WORST PRESIDENT EVER for doing something similarly non-conservative). What a surprise.

    Rich, your objective critiques lost all meaning when you got all upset about Michelle’s private birthday party (and then ODS really set in from there as you and Alex apparently tried to outdo each other).

    Thumb up 2

  23. Iconoclast

    In other words, “we have no intention of sticking to this agreement long-term.” Just for nowsies, eh?

    <shrug>  Sure.  Whatever you say.  You and CM have been batting 1000 thus far, right?

    Doesn’t matter a whit what Trump does, you and CM will interpret it as the sky falling.  Because White Supremacists, and KKK and David Duke.  Funny next four years?  Sure, why not?  I’m sure all your predictions will come true, just like all those pro-Hillary predictions did.  And your labeling (see above) has been working so great so far, yes?

    I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude, seeing how things affect me personally, because that’s all that matters on the long run.  This venue is shutting down within the next 7 days, so you two will have to conduct your “Sky Is Falling, Look At Those Stupid Conservatives” circle jerk elsewhere.

    And 1000 jobs is 1000 jobs.  If it is crony capitalism, I will be against it, but the truth is I don’t know what the details are, and neither do you.  You just prefer to believe it’s CC because alt-right or whatever, and Trump Is Evil/Stupid/Racist/Satan, and Conservatives are Stoopid.

    I am thankful that Hillary ain’t going to the Oval Office, and I’m thankful that Castro is dead.  All your bellyaching and prognostication is irrelevant.   Preach your Blame America First stuff wherever you can — it won’t be missed by me.

    Thumb up 1

  24. blameme

    So this blog ends in a week? I guess it could be renamed Left thinking on the Right Coast as that seems to be what it has morphed into. Regardless, where is everyone else going?

    Thumb up 0

  25. richtaylor365 *

    Ok, so by hiring Mr Foreclosure

    Who are you talking about, Trump? Many folks would call him Mr. Job Creator, but please do keep telling us that you will keep an open mind once he finally moves in to the WH, [chuckle,chuckle]

    And by the way, lowering taxes has historically been shown not to result in much in the way of higher growth. 

    We have had that discussion here at least 2 dozen times over the years. What I was talking about was the corporate rate, making us more competitive globally and adding an incentive to not only keep and grow businesses here, but repatriate all that overseas money back. And regarding the individual tax rate, I am a firm believer, backed by the mountain of evidence that you can probably produce indicating otherwise, that across the board tax rate cuts encourages high earners to create businesses, expanding existing businesses and hire more people. But you believe what you want.

    Naturally Mr. Plagiarizer down under is going to support everything you say . We here on the right feel confident enough in our arguments to deviate from the playbook from time to time when warranted. No  such leeway exists for you guys, sorry about that, so you and the cut and paste guy speak with one voice, I get it.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  26. stogy

    If it is crony capitalism, I will be against it, but the truth is I don’t know what the details are, and neither do you. 

    Wall Street Journal are reporting that it’s 7 million in tax breaks. Plus assurances on future tax reductions and deregulation. Plus there was the company press release. We have a fair idea.

    I’m sure all your predictions will come true, just like all those pro-Hillary predictions did.

    I didn’t make any predictions about Hillary or her Presidency. Apart from saying she was unlikely to support electoral reform.

    Preach your Blame America First stuff wherever you can — it won’t be missed by me.

    Yeah, arguing that the US was pursuing a policy that was against her own interests is “blame America first.” Seeing as you seem to think everyone only comes in binary, here’s some for you:

    0101010001101000011001010010000001110011011011010110000101110010011101000110010101110011011101000010000001110100011010000110100101101110011001110010000001110100011010000110000101110100001000000110010101110110011001010111001000100000011000110110000101101101011001010010000001101111011101010111010000100000011011110110011000100000011110010110111101110101011100100010000001101101011011110111010101110100011010000010000001101001011100110010000001010100011100100111010101101101011100000010011101110011001000000110010001101001011000110110101100101110

    I know, a bit juvenile, but you’re welcome! Happy weekending  : )

    Thumb up 1

  27. richtaylor365 *

     Wall Street Journal are reporting

    Wait, didn’t you just yesterday dismiss that paper as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the greedy bankers on Wall Street? So now they are truth to power? flippity floppity

     

    Apart from saying she was unlikely to support electoral reform.

    Soooooooooooooo, you guys lose the election and now you want to change the rules? No sore losers there, nope.

    Yeah, arguing that the US was pursuing a policy that was against her own interests is “blame America first.”

    Yes, keep lecturing Americans on what our own interests should be, that will always be well received.

    And here comes the ,”You are absolutely right, Stodgy”, from the cut and paste guy in 3,2,1………

     

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    It was Iconoclast who was adamant, to the point of dismissal, that Hillary was President. He was already wallowing in misery before election day. And now he’s adopting a whole ‘you were wrong’ approach? Hahaha.

    Thumb up 1

  29. Iconoclast

    Yeah, I was a complete sucker, for people like you who kept reassuring us that Trump had no chance in Hell of being nominated, let alone getting elected.  I lost my faith in the American People, shame on me.

    But I’m not the one continuing to make prognostications.  You are. Furthermore, you continue to slap labels on things.  As soon as Trump makes a cabinet selection, you slap on the “White Supremacist/Alt-Right/Kloset Klansman” labels.  Haven’t you learned a damned thing? Slapping labels on people doesn’t work anymore.

    The reason I harp on the “you were wrong about Hillary getting elected” theme is simply to counter your continued mental-masturbation prognostication fetish, nothing more.   But I keep forgetting how the omniscient have no need of something so mundane as learning something……

    If Trump continues to make one-on-one deals with individual companies once he’s the sitting POTUS, I absolutely will be opposed. But he ain’t the sitting POTUS yet.  Not that it matters — you guys already know everything he’s gonna do.  Lacking your omniscience, I am simply waiting until he actually does it….

    Thumb up 1

  30. AlexInCT

    The left’s new strategy, after failing to manipulate people into giving that monster Hillary the presidency, is to double down on their divide and conquer SOP bullshit. The media has decided that their job is to make sure people worry and oppose anything that Trump or his people plan to or do, even before they do it, to make sure they have no chance of doing things that work, especially things that fix problems created by the “solutions” provided by the left, which then would validate the point the problem is the left.

    Can you imagine what happens to them when people come to understand that the problem really is the mentality and ideology of the left? This is not just me realizing that this is what is really scaring the left. When compared with Obama, I surmise even a bad president would look awesome. Shit, Obama made Carter look decent and Boosh look like he was actually good. They are in a panic because they spent the last 8 years weaponizing the government to push their shit through, and now are going to be on the receiving end of that with someone that might actually do things that will work, and that scares these assholes to death.

    Our job should be to impugn these wrecker’s characters, call them out for the partisan hackery they are doing, and ridicule them and anyone pushing their narrative. Trying to hold a constructive dialogue or to use logic and facts with these people is about as effective as trying to pet sharks in a bloody feeding frenzy into a state of calm: it’s stupid and suicidal. Their reactions are the same ones you would get from a vampire facing holy symbols or a holy water bath.

    I have made a point of telling them that the worst thing that could have happened for America and the world, already didn’t, and thus, everything after that is just gravy. If we could hold back that kind of evil, we should have faith that just maybe things actually will finally start going right, which is BTW as I already mentioned as the real reason the left is in a tizzy: they are scared to death Trump actually fixes things, or even breaks fewer things, and people realize that the problem all along was and really is the left and what it stands for and does. Just like religious fanatics would, these people on the left are prepared to destroy the country, and the world, to prevent that from happening.

    Thumb up 0

  31. stogy

    Wait, didn’t you just yesterday dismiss that paper as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the greedy bankers on Wall Street? So now they are truth to power? flippity floppity

    Aaaah. No, I didn’t say that.

    Soooooooooooooo, you guys lose the election and now you want to change the rules? No sore losers there, nope.

    I said it after Bush II won in 2004, after Obama won his first and second terms, and now again with President-elect Trump. I am sorry to be so inconsistent.

    Yes, keep lecturing Americans on what our own interests should be, that will always be well received.

    You are perfectly happy to do that for other countries. Brexit, anyone? Freedom Fries with that?

    Thumb up 1

  32. richtaylor365 *

    Aaaah. No, I didn’t say that.

    Aaaah, yeah, ya kinda did:

     And WSJ are celebrating because he is appointing Wall Street insiders, of course.

    The implication being that they are aligned with “Wall Street insiders”, whatever the hell that means, so anything they say (or print) is biased and unreliable. Yet, when it suits you, you link them like they are the paragon of journalistic integrity, can’t have it both ways.

    I am sorry to be so inconsistent.

    So let me get this straight, you are complaining about something that has occurred in every single presidential election to date, and will continue, yet Hillary should have jumped on your bandwagon in changing the electoral process? Now that is really constructive criticism.

    You are perfectly happy to do that for other countries. Brexit, anyone? Freedom Fries with that?

    Except I didn’t wag my finger at Brits and accuse them of going against their own interests, see the difference?

     

    Thumb up 0

  33. stogy

    yet Hillary should have jumped on your bandwagon in changing the electoral process? 

    No, as I said above, I expected nothing to change under her presidency either. I wasn’t a Hillary supporter, but I generally preferred her to the alternative. I have been saying for a long time that the weakness in US electoral institutions is a potentially very big problem. But any time either party gets into power they have no incentive to fix it, and they bitch and complain about it when they are not in power.

    The implication being that they are aligned with “Wall Street insiders”, 

    Yeah, I also said:

    And the WSJ panders to its own community, and looks after the interests of its owner. Like most media companies.

    Except I didn’t wag my finger at Brits and accuse them of going against their own interests, see the difference?

    You said “it sounds good to you,” and have frequently attacked anti-Brexit campaigners as “whiners”. I don’t know, but that sounds like finger-wagging to me.

    Thumb up 1

  34. richtaylor365 *

     I have been saying for a long time that the weakness in US electoral institutions is a potentially very big problem.

    So we should just let California, New York and Texas determine the election, screw every one else?

    But any time either party gets into power they have no incentive to fix it

    Fix what, a system that the founders adopted and has worked pretty damn well since the very first election? If the electoral process bothers you, sorry, but in my lifetime I have never heard of it bothering a large enough sampling of folks to the point of changing it. Tell me, what presidential candidate like ever has made this a priority? I will agree that this particular election has fostered some debate in that area because of the wide disparity between the popular vote and the electoral count, but nothing even close to a concerted attempt to upend the system and replace it.

    You said “it sounds good to you,” and have frequently attacked anti-Brexit campaigners as “whiners”. I don’t know, but that sounds like finger-wagging to me.

    I think you need to re read the Brexit posts I wrote. The only “whiners” were those after the election that were not happy with the result and wanted to use subterfuge or some political tricks to negate the will of the people. You made a very good argument for those wanting to stay, I understood it, but was sympathetic to the Brexit folks, for the reasons I laid out. But never did I chastise the Brits for going against their own interests, figuring they knew their own interests and would vote accordingly, and I certainly did not lay 100 years of failed policies at their feet, that is what I meant by finger waging.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  35. stogy

    So we should just let California, New York and Texas determine the election, screw every one else?

    No, not at all. Actually, I think it is terrible that conservatives in traditional Democratic states effectively don’t have a voice because of the way that states receive all of the block of votes in the electoral college. And vice versa, of course. It means that Presidential candidates don’t have to work hard in safe states, and congressional candidates likewise do t have to work hard in Gerrymandered seats either. It means that pork barrelling goes to marginal electorates to buy votes, and to big companies in return for political donations.

    I would like to see an end to the electoral college, and end to state block votings, non-partisan setting of electoral boundaries, a preferential voting system (numbering candidates in order of preference, like they do in Australia), strict rules on political donations, and clearer boundaries on lobbyists in politics.

    More contentious than these things and less likely to attract support would be the introduction of compulsory voting (actually compulsory attendance at a polling station – you can’t actually make people vote).

    At least these things could be discussed.

    Thumb up 1

  36. richtaylor365 *

    At least these things could be discussed.

    Have at it, but at least be realistic in the simple fact that the electoral college is never going away, it is too immersed in history and precedent, it has served us well for 250 years and the minuscule amount of voices we hear every 4 years is not compelling enough for a serious challenge.

    compulsory voting

    No, no, a thousand times NO!!

    Freedom means the right not to do something. If somebody wants to live his life a stupid uninformed slug, he has that right, leave him alone in his sluggery.

    Besides Reason Magazine just took all your talking points, including your Australia comparison, and kicked them around the room;

    . Mandatory voting is a violation of our civil rights, just as denying a citizen a right to vote is a violation. Casting a vote is speech. It is showing support or opposition to a candidate or proposal. Making voting mandatory means voting is no longer a right. It’s an obligation. It’s forced speech. If we were forced to attend a church, but had a choice of several churches, we would still (most of us, anyway) recognize that this is a violation of our freedom to decline to practice religion at all. Not voting isn’t just an expression of apathy. It’s also a form of protest.

     

    Thumb up 0

  37. AlexInCT

    Have at it, but at least be realistic in the simple fact that the electoral college is never going away, it is too immersed in history and precedent, it has served us well for 250 years and the minuscule amount of voices we hear every 4 years is not compelling enough for a serious challenge.

    If we get rid of the electoral college this country will basically revert to rulership by the mob, and not the good kind of rulership, as the mob in question tends to be primarily comprised of coastal megalopolis types with their hands out for the fruits of other people’s labors. The genius displayed by our forefathers in implementing a system that would prevent that shit from being that easy is removed at our own peril.

    compulsory voting

    No, no, a thousand times NO!!

    Freedom means the right not to do something. If somebody wants to live his life a stupid uninformed slug, he has that right, leave him alone in his sluggery.

    Funny how the people that always push for mandatory voting also tend to be the ones enamored with the systems where there is usually only one candidate and that candidate gets 98% plus of the vote (or else). You know the system in question. We just recently had one of these world’s most evil and tyrannical asshole types finally die and go to hell.

    Thumb up 0

  38. stogy

    As I said, it’s a conversation…. and people are talking about electoral reform. Trump himself mentioned term limits and limits on lobbyist access.

    In terms of compulsory voting, I agree with you on those points. But I feel that they are outweighed by the advantages, such as the fact that it encourages stronger engagement by the electorate and prevents politicians from targeting particular constituencies that are more likely to vote for them, while ignoring the needs of those who don’t vote. It’s yet another kind of gerrymandering. Compulsory voting also doesn’t mean you have to vote; just that you have to attend a polling station – in other words, show that you have availed yourself of your right to vote.

    Thumb up 1

  39. Iconoclast

    Wall Street Journal are reporting that it’s 7 million in tax breaks. Plus assurances on future tax reductions and deregulation. Plus there was the company press release. We have a fair idea.

    For the record, “future tax reductions and deregulation” would apply to everyone within the target industry(ies), not just Carrier.  I seriously doubt that Trump considers “future tax reductions and deregulation” for one specific company to be politically viable.

    Thumb up 0

  40. stogy

    Really? Happy to be wrong, but that’s not the story coming out of a lot of the media at the moment:

    The tax incentives for Carrier are said not likely to be enough to have clinched the deal to keep the jobs in the U.S. Keeping good relationships with Trump’s administration when Carrier’s parent company has billions in federal contracts was also likely a factor. Still the issue of giving tax breaks for keeping existing jobs is not what we expected from Trump who suggested there would be “consequences” for U.S. companies that relocated elsewhere.

    It’s good news the jobs were saved but rather than negotiate tax breaks with every individual company that threatens to move, we’d better address the overall U.S. business climate so they won’t want to move in the first place.

    Moreover, The Daily Caller (not a source I would usually quote from) seems to think that plenty of other companies want to get in on this special tax consideration.

    Plug Power employees asked President-elect Donald Trump to support bringing back tax subsidies for fuel cells that expired at the end of last year to save “tens of thousands” of jobs from overseas competition.

    “There is little, after all, to stop other companies from threatening to move jobs to win similar concessions,” wrote Ben Casselman, chief economics writer at FiveThirtyEight. “And such deals offer ample opportunity for corruption and abuse as politicians decide which companies deserve help and which jobs deserve saving.”

    Not quite a stampede yet, but the omens are not good.

    Thumb up 1

  41. Iconoclast

    You mentioned three specific things, stogy:

     7 Million in tax breaks
     Future tax reductions
     Deregulation

    Your articles seem to be focused on #1.  The Daily Caller article mentions it explicitly.

    I was referring to the second two items, which seem more global in nature.  I could be wrong, but I don’t see how deregulation can be made to impact just one single company in a given industry.  Same for future tax reductions.  I think the 7 million was specific to Carrier, to entice them to stick around until the more universal tax cuts and deregulation could happen.

     

    Thumb up 0

  42. Iconoclast

    …..my bet is that inequality in the US will grow under a Trump Presidency.

    That my very well be, but if the majority of law-abiding, working-stiff people are benefiting and seeing their lives improve, the only ones who will care about “inequality” will be the leftist SJWs.

    Thumb up 0

  43. Iconoclast

    As I said,  if the majority of law-abiding, working-stiff people are benefiting and seeing their lives improve they won’t care about “inequality”.

    Oh, and Nate silver was obviously wrong about Trump’s chances of winning…..

    Thumb up 0

  44. Iconoclast

    Um no. He gave him a chance so he wasn’t wrong at all. Way to misrepresent

    You got a thumbs up on that — no surprise there.   And I didn’t say Silver said he had “no” chance.  Talk about misrepresentation.

    I said he was wrong about his chances, plural.  Nowhere in the history if determining the odds did Silver ever favor Trump to win.  No, Hillary was always favored.  The margins varied, but Hillary was always favored, and on election day itself, the margin was more than 2-1 in favor of Hillary.

    That’s what I meant, and I suspect normal people got that.  I suspect you did too, given your massively oversize intellect.  I think you just wanted to score a cheap pedant point. Well, good for you.

    But the point is, Silver was still wrong to never favor Trump, and to always favor Hillary.

    Thumb up 0

  45. Iconoclast

    Nothing about Puzner suggests the lives of working stiffs is about to get better. Quite the opposite. They’ve been stiffed.

    Got a thumbs up for that one too, sound the trumpets.  But you’re premature to pretend it’s already happened.   “They” haven’t been “stiffed” yet by the Trump economy; Trump ain’t even sworn in yet, but you still act like the “stiffing” of ordinary people is past history.  You cannot even wait until Trump commits a crime before you proceed with your lynching.   You persist in preemptive lynching.

    In spite of your accusations of ODS, I don’t recall ever bitching about anything Obama had not actually done yet.  “If the roles were reversed” yadda yadda yadda……..

    Thumb up 0

  46. Iconoclast

    Wait for the knee-jerk Trump defenders to storm in and castigate you for such slander.

    Yet another thumbs up — how cute.  You have an admirer.

    Yeah, I jealous, keep telling yourself that.  The truth is that I am merely disappointed that this is no longer a right-leaning blog, as the thumbs ups are consistently on left-wing views.  Which is fine, in and of itself, but calling this blog “Right-Thinking” is mockery at this point.

    The only “defense” I give Trump is for people to actually wait until he commits the crime before going all ape-shit over it, like you keep doing before the fact.  Like I said, to the best of my recollection, I at least gave Obama that much respect……..

    Not that this left-wing blog gives a shit, of course……

    Thumb up 1

  47. stogy

    Your jealously is unbecoming, Icon. Here’s a thumbs up for you too, just so you don’t feel left out.

    This blog is still pretty right wing – from my perspective. There is no one here from any further left than the centre left. There’s a couple from the centre right, and then some RRWNJs to fill out the ranks. I am not 100% where you place yourself on the continuum, but if from your perspective everyone looks to be to the left of you, then…. well you can draw your own conclusions from that.

    Thumb up 1

  48. stogy

    Well Alex, if it makes you feel better, you aren’t missing out on much. I keep getting a thumbs up but no cookies coming my way either.

    Thumb up 1

  49. Iconoclast

    This thumbs up thing must be cookie based, because it won’t work for me…

    Doesn’t work for me, either.  Doesn’t matter which browser I use, or platform (Windows or iOS).

    Thumb up 0

  50. Iconoclast

    Silver didn’t even write the inequality article.

    I never said he did.

    The inequality article discusses research findings on inequality, not the accuracy of 538 modeling in the 2016 election.

    But the whole 538 schtick is modeling and statistical analysis.  My point is, even that ain’t foolproof, as the election result illustrates.

    But here I go, connecting dots for you again.  I cannot believe your massively oversized intellect has to be led by the hand so consistently….

    This blog is still pretty right wing – from my perspective.

    The audience sure as hell ain’t, as evidenced by the thumbs up going consistently to leftist opinions and posts.

    Thumb up 0

  51. richtaylor365 *

    This thumbs up thing must be cookie based, because it won’t work for me…

    Do you really want to be a charter member of the reach around club? I think not.

    Thumb up 0