Trump III - the daily log

[Manoli]

The Economist, unfortunately, has become the latest commie mouthpiece.

Keeping that one for posterity ...

[Alan Klein]

What is more interesting is that, based on current population projections, in 20 years, half the population in America will live in eight states.  Apologies if you have used up your quota of free Washington Post articles.  We don't know what the party identification will be in 2040 but it is worth noting that both GenX and Millenials trend to the Democrats (Millenials by 24% based on a Pew Foundation study).  This means that the House and Senate will represent to wildly different groups within the US.  It will be interesting to see what the voting trends are in TX, FL, GA, and NC are during this time period.

Since the Depression in 1933, democrats have controlled the senate and house more than republicans.  It's only recently that it's been more divided. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

As recently as 2013, democrats ruled both the senate and house and presidency.  Now it's the opposite but could change again in a few years.

The article you presented that states the Tyranny of the Minority, got it just backwards.  The writer should know better. It's the majority that creates tyranny.  They have the majority vote - more than 50%.  The whole purpose of the Bill of RIghts is to protect minority viewpoints.  The majority doesn;t need protection. 

Additionally, there would be no United States if the founders didn't create an Electoral College giving a slight vote edge to smaller states during a presidential election.  The smaller states would not have agreed to the USA.  They didn't want to be elbowed around by the larger states. 

The same is true about the Senate where each state has two senators regardless of the number of residents in each state.  After all, each state is sovereign.  Who calls the United Nation's General Assembly  a "tyranny of the minority" because each country has one vote.  China is equal to Jamaica, etc. Well in America, each state is valued equally in the Senate regardless of the number of people in their state.  So little Alaska (well big geographically) with less than a million people has two senators as does California with their 50 million people.  Senators represent the states not the people.  Of course the House of Representatives which represent the people is divided based on the number of people.  So Alaska has one representative to California's 51.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The Economist, unfortunately, has become the latest commie mouthpiece.

These types of pejoratives are unworthy of you.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...We don't know what the party identification will be in 2040 but it is worth noting that both GenX and Millenials trend to the Democrats...

Now.

But in 2040 they will grow up and, as most reasonable mature people do, will vote Republican

[Alan Klein]

Now.

But in 2040 they will grow up and, as most reasonable mature people do, will vote Republican

I don't know if I'll be alive to see that or the oceans rise. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Since the Depression in 1933, democrats have controlled the senate and house more than republicans.  It's only recently that it's been more divided. 

The Southern states did not allow blacks to vote in significant numbers until the Civil Rights Act was passed.  In addition, Southern Democratic legislators in the Senate controlled almost all the committees and a 2/3 vote was required to break filibusters as opposed to the current 60 votes.  Democrats had to rely on Southern votes to get legislation passed.  Of course during the recession in the 1930s a lot of stuff was passed because the economic times were so dire.  Since 1964 the Republican Party has become more conservative and Southern oriented. 

The article you presented that states the Tyranny of the Minority, got it just backwards.  The writer should know better. It's the majority that creates tyranny.  They have the majority vote - more than 50%.  The whole purpose of the Bill of RIghts is to protect minority viewpoints.  The majority doesn;t need protection.

Unfortunately, almost every vote in the Senate now requires 60 votes because of the filibuster threat.  HERE are the number of Cloture motions for the Senate going all the way back to 1917.  You can see the dramatic uptic that began in 2007, the same year McConnell became minority (and later majority leader) for the Republicans in the Senate.

Additionally, there would be no United States if the founders didn't create an Electoral College giving a slight vote edge to smaller states during a presidential election.  The smaller states would not have agreed to the USA.  They didn't want to be elbowed around by the larger states. 

I think this is conjecture; it more likely had to do with the preservation of slavery.

The same is true about the Senate where each state has two senators regardless of the number of residents in each state.  After all, each state is sovereign.  Who calls the United Nation's General Assembly  a "tyranny of the minority" because each country has one vote.  China is equal to Jamaica, etc. Well in America, each state is valued equally in the Senate regardless of the number of people in their state.  So little Alaska (well big geographically) with less than a million people has two senators as does California with their 50 million people.  Senators represent the states not the people.  Of course the House of Representatives which represent the people is divided based on the number of people.  So Alaska has one representative to California's 51.
[/quote]

[Alan Goldhammer]

Now.

But in 2040 they will grow up and, as most reasonable mature people do, will vote Republican

That is not necessarily the case.  The Pew Research study cited in the article shows party identification trending Republican in only the "Silent Generation" (birthdates 1928-45).  The Baby Boom generation (1946-64) still trends Democratic.  Republican party identification has shown a steeper drop than Democratic with a shift to more Independents.  In addition, Republican identification tends to be older and more white than Democratic which does not portend well for the Republicans.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That is not necessarily the case.  The Pew Research study cited in the article shows party identification trending Republican in only the "Silent Generation" (birthdates 1928-45).  The Baby Boom generation (1946-64) still trends Democratic.  Republican party identification has shown a steeper drop than Democratic with a shift to more Independents.  In addition, Republican identification tends to be older and more white than Democratic which does not portend well for the Republicans.

I think you are, unfortunately, correct. Looks like the Soviets* will have the last laugh after all.

* Is it more palatable than commies?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I think this is conjecture; it more likely had to do with the preservation of slavery...

I am not sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that the parity vs. proportional principle for federations is invented to preserve slavery?

[KLaban]

No Keith, that part is definitely right.
Initially they wanted to put the whole site behind a paywall but after a long and animated thread changed their mind.
Forum is free access.

Thanks.

[degrub]

I am not sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that the parity vs. proportional principle for federations is invented to preserve slavery?

i think it was really about preserving "property" at the time of writing. The Senate was viewed as a check on the populist waves that would be presented by the "rabble" that elected the members of the House. Much as the House of Lords has functioned in the UK i would imagine.

[Alan Klein]

...
Unfortunately, almost every vote in the Senate now requires 60 votes because of the filibuster threat.  ...

For a long time, I thought the filibuster rule was undemocratic.  Let's have an up or down vote on all issues.  Now, I'm re-thinking it.  We seem to be in very hostile area where each side takes uncompromising positions.  It was 1993 that Ginsburg got approved to be a supreme court justice with both parties voting 96-3.  Those days are over.  Today, "split-the-baby" Moses could come back down from heaven and we'd have a major fight to get him confirmed for the court. 

What concerns me, probably as a conservative, is that the Democrats will pack the court the next time they control the Congress and Presidency.  Or they will pass legislation that really swings the country too far in one direction.   Frankly, while it's nice to have a republican Congress and Presidency, I also think its bad for our freedoms.  Concentrated power takes away individual freedoms.  I'd rather see a frozen Congress that does less.  Obstructionism is good.   Frankly that was one of the reasons the founders set up our government the way they did with Electors, two senators, etc.  They wanted a weak national government.  Frankly, it hasn't worked that well.  They would be astonished and disappointed how much power has been centralized.  On the other hand, the Constitution still stands. So that would amaze them as well since they didn't think it would protect us from ourselves.

[Alan Klein]

i think it was really about preserving "property" at the time of writing. The Senate was viewed as a check on the populist waves that would be presented by the "rabble" that elected the members of the House. Much as the House of Lords has functioned in the UK i would imagine.

Same fear that the American founders had.  It's one of the reasons they added the Bill of Rights to protect freedoms of speech, religion, etc from popular opinion that has the majority vote. 

Our Senate I suppose is like your House of Lords in that it limits the damage populism creates.  Interestingly, the original US Constitution elected Senators from the legislature of each state.  The Constitution was amended in 1913 to elect Senators by direct popular vote in each state.  In 2018, Republicans control 32 of the 50 states legislatures.  If the original Constitution rule was used, the Senate today would have at least 64 Republican senators out of 100 making it filibuster proof rather than the 51-49 split there is now  in Republican favor. 

In any case, populism can center power more and give the people who want everything from their government to create major redistribution of wealth and property that your House of Lords and our Senate were left to protect against. 

[degrub]

Alan,

i was reciting the path from our English institutional heritage.
i am Texan through and through.
Frank

[Alan Goldhammer]

For a long time, I thought the filibuster rule was undemocratic.  Let's have an up or down vote on all issues.  Now, I'm re-thinking it.  We seem to be in very hostile area where each side takes uncompromising positions.  It was 1993 that Ginsburg got approved to be a supreme court justice with both parties voting 96-3.  Those days are over.  Today, "split-the-baby" Moses could come back down from heaven and we'd have a major fight to get him confirmed for the court. 

With only a few exceptions all the Republicans voted against Sotomayor and Kagan who were Obama's nominees

What concerns me, probably as a conservative, is that the Democrats will pack the court the next time they control the Congress and Presidency.  Or they will pass legislation that really swings the country too far in one direction.

They would have to have big majorities in both legislative chambers.  It's highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will expanded but it is possible that the "lifetime tenure" will be removed which IMO will be a good thing.  There is absolutely no reason by Federal judges should have lifetime tenure.

Frankly, while it's nice to have a republican Congress and Presidency, I also think its bad for our freedoms.  Concentrated power takes away individual freedoms.  I'd rather see a frozen Congress that does less.  Obstructionism is good.   Frankly that was one of the reasons the founders set up our government the way they did with Electors, two senators, etc.  They wanted a weak national government.  Frankly, it hasn't worked that well.  They would be astonished and disappointed how much power has been centralized.  On the other hand, the Constitution still stands. So that would amaze them as well since they didn't think it would protect us from ourselves.

More freedoms are taken away at the state and local levels than at the national level.  Regarding the views of the original writers of the Constitution, I don't think they envisioned the problems that slavery was going to cause for the country.  They also could not have imagined what the role of technology was going to play in the development of America and that this would lead to interesting interpretations of the Constitution over the years. 

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

i was reciting the path from our English institutional heritage.
i am Texan through and through.
Frank

Sorry Frank,  Certainly no Lordships in Texas. 

[Alan Klein]

With only a few exceptions all the Republicans voted against Sotomayor and Kagan who were Obama's nominees...

...and with few exceptions all the Democrats voted against Gorsuch who was Trump's nominee.  All too prove my point that we're getting very divided politically. 

[Alan Klein]

...
More freedoms are taken away at the state and local levels than at the national level.  ...

In certain areas that's true.  But there are major ways the Federal government effects our lives.

War-  especially when the Congress has often abandoned its constitutional responsibility to be the ones that declare it, not the President who they've given the power too much to often.

Taxes and debt - When half your income goes to income, social security and medicare taxes, they are a major factor on how your money that you earned is spent and saved. 

Social security and medicare - another two major factors in how you live and allocate resources to your retirement and medical care.  The government has decided what's good for you.  Include Obamacare for those who are under 65.

The Fed - An unelected group that prints money devaluing through inflation whatever money the government hasn't seized from you to pay for government expenses that can't be paid with the nearly confiscatory taxes they collect.

The NSA -  and other security departments that monitor and snoop into your everyday private communications with other American citizens

Did I miss anything?  What freedoms are left???

[Alan Goldhammer]

Social security and medicare - another two major factors in how you live and allocate resources to your retirement and medical care.  The government has decided what's good for you.  Include Obamacare for those who are under 65.

Are you opposed to Social Security and Medicare?  I am not.

[Alan Klein]

Are you opposed to Social Security and Medicare?  I am not.

It doesn't matter if you prefer it.  What matters is the huge power of the government to take away people's freedom of choice in how they wish to spend the money they work for and earned.     

By the way, Congress can cut benefits even though you contributed all your life. Especially if a means test shows you have too much wealth and money.  So they have that power as well.   We're going to have another trillion dollar deficit.  Thanks to Trump.    We 're running out of other people's money.