Kamala Harris should not be the choice for the Democratic party

Kinda feel like she's coming across as catty, arrogant, and party destructive. So far all she's done is put it into the minds of minorities that Biden is a racist. Very dangerous plan of attack. Especially if he ends up getting the nomination. Inspiring minorities to sit out another election will be a disaster. She was condescending to Gabbards who legitimately called into question her record on witholding evidence on death row cases. Telling Gabbards while she's making "cute speeches on the house floor she was doing real work" (paraphrase). Pretty sure while roughly the same age Harris was fucking her way to a better job in SF while Gabbards was serving in Iraq. Harris is pretty much góing scorched Earth with everyone except Booker. It's high risk and appears to be only self serving. Especially if she doesn't get the nomination. I don't see her winning over Trump. He will go all out highlighting that Dems whining about his immoral behavior is cute considering her record as as prosecutor and personal life

Agree to an extent, but it's already out there on the twitterverse that Biden is the "architect of the modern day Jim Crow" for all his tough on crime bills etc. Can expect more of these attacks to come. She got her bell rung last night by Tulsi and Gillibrand. Her record as a prosecutor will be used to drag her through the mud as well.

Right now I just like Biden because he represents the best chance to win, but he's not looking so hot up there on the stage. I imagine vs Trump he'll get destroyed. I'm starting to wonder if Warren is the best bet though I don't think her policies will carry it in the battle ground states. What say you?

Steve, my dude, you always sound like a cable news pundit.

Stop worrying about who can win. It’s a stupid thing to base your vote on. Vote for whose policies you like the most. If everyone does that then we’ll land on the candidate most likely to win.

Everytime I watch Biden go beyond the bounds of what his long term memory has retained, I feel like I'm watching my 79 year old dad navigate his first smart phone.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Steve, my dude, you always sound like a cable news pundit.

Stop worrying about who can win. It’s a stupid thing to base your vote on. Vote for whose policies you like the most. If everyone does that then we’ll land on the candidate most likely to win.

Except that everyone on stage agreed that job 1 is defeating Trump. So finding the most electable in the group has merit.

kingstonlake wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Steve, my dude, you always sound like a cable news pundit.

Stop worrying about who can win. It’s a stupid thing to base your vote on. Vote for whose policies you like the most. If everyone does that then we’ll land on the candidate most likely to win.

Except that everyone on stage agreed that job 1 is defeating Trump. So finding the most electable in the group has merit.

The most electable person is the person that everyone likes the most, which is what we’re here to do a primary about. Not cable news hot takes about battle ground states and shit.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

Except that everyone on stage agreed that job 1 is defeating Trump. So finding the most electable in the group has merit.

The most electable person is the person that everyone likes the most, which is what we’re here to do a primary about. Not cable news hot takes about battle ground states and shit.

I disagree to a certain point. consistently smearing Joe Biden as a racist when he's not will turn away some voters in the general election. Hell, whomever get the nod will turn away certain demographics. Dems need to make that number as small as possible. You could make a reasonable argument that Biden should drop on the idea that Harris has painted him as a racist. Let's say he wins the nod. Now Trump gets 3 debates and endless rallies and tv time to say "Joe's own party says he's a racist" So which racist you going to vote for? Neither, I'll sit this one out.

I do not think that debate number 2 in July 2019 is going to have nearly the impact on the general election in November 2020 as you are describing. As in, I don’t think a single vote will be changed deriving from anything even semi related to debate number 2 in July 2019. Hell does anyone even remember debate number 1 in June 2019? That was only a month ago.

Also trump will say “xyz’s own party says that he/she is a literal cannibal who eats people for sport like Joey chestnut eats hot dogs” and he will have endless rallies and Fox News air time to blast that, and it will matter very very little whether any democrat said that.

Travis, Biden does have one appealing thing about him that makes me want to vote for him - he represents getting things back on track and back to normal. You know what else I like is his polling numbers, he's got the best chances to win Ohio, he has the best chances to beat Trump vs rest of the field and he polls the best in African American voters. Also, I live in a bubble on the coast. I think the policies that excite me the most are losers every where else. I've come to accept this is a very right leaning country.

steveschneider wrote:Travis, Biden does have one appealing thing about him that makes me want to vote for him - he represents getting things back on track and back to normal.

Okay, good steve. This is good. I disagree. But fine.

steveschneider wrote: You know what else I like is his polling numbers, he's got the best chances to win Ohio, he has the best chances to beat Trump vs rest of the field and he polls the best in African American voters. Also, I live in a bubble on the coast. I think the policies that excite me the most are losers every where else. I've come to accept this is a very right leaning country.

Jesus steve no stopppppppp

Also fuck Ohio. Who cares. Biden won’t win Ohio. Have you ever been to Ohio? You might as well vote based on who can win Tennessee.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Travis, Biden does have one appealing thing about him that makes me want to vote for him - he represents getting things back on track and back to normal.

Okay, good steve. This is good. I disagree. But fine.

steveschneider wrote: You know what else I like is his polling numbers, he's got the best chances to win Ohio, he has the best chances to beat Trump vs rest of the field and he polls the best in African American voters. Also, I live in a bubble on the coast. I think the policies that excite me the most are losers every where else. I've come to accept this is a very right leaning country.

Jesus steve no stopppppppp

Also fuck Ohio. Who cares. Biden won’t win Ohio. Have you ever been to Ohio? You might as well vote based on who can win Tennessee.

Obama won Ohio, confident it can be done again.

Yeah you’ve never been to Ohio.

Anyway, I also reject your “this country is right leaning.” Right leaning cable news pundits and bill maher convinced you of that steve. It’s not the case. Not really.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Yeah you’ve never been to Ohio.

Anyway, I also reject your “this country is right leaning.” Right leaning cable news pundits and bill maher convinced you of that steve. It’s not the case. Not really.

Been to Ohio many times. Overall the country may not be right leaning but the people that actually show up and vote certainly are.

Democrats have got to let this thing work out organically. They tried to force Hillary and if they do the same with Biden its not going to work. Also, fuck what the right is saying, you aren't getting any of those voters. Best case scenario is that this time they don't feel comfortable voting for Trump, so they just sit out the election. The good news is that the NRA is currently in a world of shit and the Cock Brothers have kind of withdrawn some of their $$ since they got what they wanted with the tax cuts. Democrats need to rally the base and get them out to vote, they need to not lose Bernie bro's who are pissed that he doesn't get the nomination and they need to keep the support of KH supporters so they vote. A democrat could spout right wing radio talking points and they would still be painted as a socialist and out to control your $$ from Faux News and right wing radiio.

steveschneider wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Yeah you’ve never been to Ohio.

Anyway, I also reject your “this country is right leaning.” Right leaning cable news pundits and bill maher convinced you of that steve. It’s not the case. Not really.

Been to Ohio many times. Overall the country may not be right leaning but the people that actually show up and vote certainly are.

No they certainly are not.

We have these silly things like an electoral college, randomly drawn house maps, and a ludicrous senate designed 300 years ago that needs to be blown up and rebuilt... the results of which are a representation that do not represent not only the thoughts of the people but literally the votes of the people.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Been to Ohio many times. Overall the country may not be right leaning but the people that actually show up and vote certainly are.

No they certainly are not.

We have these silly things like an electoral college, randomly drawn house maps, and a ludicrous senate designed 300 years ago that needs to be blown up and rebuilt... the results of which are a representation that do not represent not only the thoughts of the people but literally the votes of the people.

Agree, but here we are with what 5/6ths of gov controlled by Republicans. Old people vote, people that work and pay taxes vote. I bet a good chunk of the folks that went to Sanders rallies in 2016 couldn’t get off their ass and vote for him in their primaries. Small sampling but I had many friends in the city that loved sanders but didn’t get out to vote for him in the primary or refused to go from independent to dem because it was a corporate party. Didn’t stop them from whining on Facebook about how he got robbed and it was rigged.

steveschneider wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

No they certainly are not.

We have these silly things like an electoral college, randomly drawn house maps, and a ludicrous senate designed 300 years ago that needs to be blown up and rebuilt... the results of which are a representation that do not represent not only the thoughts of the people but literally the votes of the people.

Agree, but here we are with what 5/6ths of gov controlled by Republicans. Old people vote, people that work and pay taxes vote. I bet a good chunk of the folks that went to Sanders rallies in 2016 couldn’t get off their ass and vote for him in their primaries. Small sampling but I had many friends in the city that loved sanders but didn’t get out to vote for him in the primary or refused to go from independent to dem because it was a corporate party. Didn’t stop them from whining on Facebook about how he got robbed and it was rigged.

Okay but that’s a far cry from “right leaning country” so as long as we agree there then I’ll go back to coming up with things that trump will accuse the democratic candidate of being regardless of whether any democrat said it about them or not.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Agree, but here we are with what 5/6ths of gov controlled by Republicans. Old people vote, people that work and pay taxes vote.  I bet a good chunk of the folks that went to Sanders rallies in 2016 couldn’t get off their ass and vote for him in their primaries. Small sampling but I had many friends in the city that loved sanders but didn’t get out to vote for him in the primary or refused to go from independent to dem because it was a corporate party. Didn’t stop them from whining on Facebook about how he got robbed and it was rigged.

Okay but that’s a far cry from “right leaning country” so as long as we agree there then I’ll go back to coming up with things that trump will accuse the democratic candidate of being regardless of whether any democrat said it about them or not.

You can do that but you're just entertaining yourself for your own sake. I'd bring up lessons that could be learned from alienating certain demographics or running a candidate that doesn't excite people to get out and vote but you don't like that kind of stuff. I used to think it was kinda weird. Now I understand it's only because it can be used to disprove your general point that nothing in recent history  matters when really it does. Just because your tired of hearing it, doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Agree, but here we are with what 5/6ths of gov controlled by Republicans. Old people vote, people that work and pay taxes vote. I bet a good chunk of the folks that went to Sanders rallies in 2016 couldn’t get off their ass and vote for him in their primaries. Small sampling but I had many friends in the city that loved sanders but didn’t get out to vote for him in the primary or refused to go from independent to dem because it was a corporate party. Didn’t stop them from whining on Facebook about how he got robbed and it was rigged.

Okay but that’s a far cry from “right leaning country” so as long as we agree there then I’ll go back to coming up with things that trump will accuse the democratic candidate of being regardless of whether any democrat said it about them or not.

Yeah, I agree with it for the most part. I think the left leaners have a serious problem with apathy or the tired old I can't vote for a corpratist asshole or republican lite bullshit.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Been to Ohio many times. Overall the country may not be right leaning but the people that actually show up and vote certainly are.

No they certainly are not.

We have these silly things like an electoral college, randomly drawn house maps, and a ludicrous senate designed 300 years ago that needs to be blown up and rebuilt... the results of which are a representation that do not represent not only the thoughts of the people but literally the votes of the people.

Travis being the history genius again.

Regardless of that, I disagree completely about the electoral college and the senate. The reasons they were put in place originally still ring true today. This country is too big and too diverse (socially, economically, and geographically) to have a handful of major cities effectively decide everything. Take away the voice of the less populated states and economic disaster there will follow. It's naive to think that the likes of New York and California congresspeople will sacrifice jobs and efforts (and effectively their own re-elections) in favor of helping South Dakota and Mississippi?

kingstonlake wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Okay but that’s a far cry from “right leaning country” so as long as we agree there then I’ll go back to coming up with things that trump will accuse the democratic candidate of being regardless of whether any democrat said it about them or not.

You can do that but you're just entertaining yourself for your own sake. I'd bring up lessons that could be learned from alienating certain demographics or running a candidate that doesn't excite people to get out and vote but you don't like that kind of stuff. I used to think it was kinda weird. Now I understand it's only because it can be used to disprove your general point that nothing in recent history  matters when really it does. Just because your tired of hearing it, doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Yeah no for sure those things that Bernie said about Hilary in that debate in North Carolina were ringing in everyone’s ears in 2016

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

No they certainly are not.

We have these silly things like an electoral college, randomly drawn house maps, and a ludicrous senate designed 300 years ago that needs to be blown up and rebuilt... the results of which are a representation that do not represent not only the thoughts of the people but literally the votes of the people.

Travis being the history genius again.

Regardless of that, I disagree completely about the electoral college and the senate. The reasons they were put in place originally still ring true today. This country is too big and too diverse (socially, economically, and geographically) to have a handful of major cities effectively decide everything. Take away the voice of the less populated states and economic disaster there will follow. It's naive to think that the likes of New York and California congresspeople will sacrifice jobs and efforts (and effectively their own re-elections) in favor of helping South Dakota and Mississippi?

I have absolutely no idea why someone who votes in a state like Florida or Michigan would support devaluing their own vote by supporting the electoral college, but so be it. I guess you just think that the votes of the few people living in the middle of the country mean more than yours. Personally I disagree, but hey, work on that self esteem maybe skippy.

I would argue the Electoral College was not about protecting small states from large cities. Instead it was about handing over the selection of the president to "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens" (Hamilton, Fed No. 68). Given the importance of the position, it seems the framers felt the people were not fit to make the decision regardless of geography.

I am not saying it is wrong to make this argument - it is certainly an argument that can be made - but I do not think it was the framer's primary motivation for the Electoral College. I also think the argument ties the origins of the Electoral College to slavery, which would clearly make it outdated and worthy of an amendment abolishing its use or some kind of significant reform.

Lastly, I think we can flip the small state argument and suggest small states are over represented in the EC. In Wyoming, you have approximately one elector per 193,000 people. Whereas in California that number is approximately one to 720,000.

Turtleneck wrote:I would argue the Electoral College was not about protecting small states from large cities. Instead it was about handing over the selection of the president to "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens" (Hamilton, Fed No. 68). Given the importance of the position, it seems the framers felt the people were not fit to make the decision regardless of geography.

I am not saying it is wrong to make this argument - it is certainly an argument that can be made - but I do not think it was the framer's primary motivation for the Electoral College. I also think the argument ties origins of the Electoral College to slavery, which would clearly make it outdated.

Lastly, I think we can flip the small state argument and suggest small states are over represented in the EC via the two senate seats. In Wyoming, you have approximately one elector per 193,000 people. Whereas in California that number is approximately one to 720,000.

In other words- Roc in Idaho has more of a say in who becomes president than anyone else here. I like Roc. I respect Roc. I do not think Rocs vote should mean more than mine.

Yeah, it could be argued Roc and his North Dakota peers have an outsized influence.

Turtleneck wrote:I would argue the Electoral College was not about protecting small states from large cities. Instead it was about handing over the selection of the president to "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens" (Hamilton, Fed No. 68). Given the importance of the position, it seems the framers felt the people were not fit to make the decision regardless of geography.

I am not saying it is wrong to make this argument - it is certainly an argument that can be made - but I do not think it was the framer's primary motivation for the Electoral College. I also think the argument ties the origins of the Electoral College to slavery, which would clearly make it outdated and worthy of an amendment abolishing its use or some kind of significant reform.

Lastly, I think we can flip the small state argument and suggest small states are over represented in the EC. In Wyoming, you have approximately one elector per 193,000 people. Whereas in California that number is approximately one to 720,000.

Yeah, California has the largest economy in the country, a good chunk of their taxes goes towards red states and they get the same number of senate votes as Wyoming? Bunch of BS.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Travis being the history genius again.

Regardless of that, I disagree completely about the electoral college and the senate. The reasons they were put in place originally still ring true today. This country is too big and too diverse (socially, economically, and geographically) to have a handful of major cities effectively decide everything. Take away the voice of the less populated states and economic disaster there will follow. It's naive to think that the likes of New York and California congresspeople will sacrifice jobs and efforts (and effectively their own re-elections) in favor of helping South Dakota and Mississippi?

I have absolutely no idea why someone who votes in a state like Florida or Michigan would support devaluing their own vote by supporting the electoral college, but so be it. I guess you just think that the votes of the few people living in the middle of the country mean more than yours. Personally I disagree, but hey, work on that self esteem maybe skippy.

I have absolutely no idea why someone who votes in a state like Michigan would want to put the prospect of jobs, funding, and other federal government decisions for their state in the hands of representatives that are trying to get re-elected in California, Texas, Florida, New York, and a few other states.

Turtleneck wrote:I would argue the Electoral College was not about protecting small states from large cities. Instead it was about handing over the selection of the president to "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens" (Hamilton, Fed No. 68). Given the importance of the position, it seems the framers felt the people were not fit to make the decision regardless of geography.

I am not saying it is wrong to make this argument - it is certainly an argument that can be made - but I do not think it was the framer's primary motivation for the Electoral College. I also think the argument ties the origins of the Electoral College to slavery, which would clearly make it outdated and worthy of an amendment abolishing its use or some kind of significant reform.

Lastly, I think we can flip the small state argument and suggest small states are over represented in the EC. In Wyoming, you have approximately one elector per 193,000 people. Whereas in California that number is approximately one to 720,000.

That's true that the Electoral College wasn't about protecting the small states originally, and I don't disagree that the person to electoral vote ratio should be more even. I just don't think it should be done away with entirely.

My argument was more about Travis' comment on the senate. Smaller states would get severely dicked over if we only had the House. The top 9 states in the House represent a majority of the votes. I can't see how that is a good thing.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I have absolutely no idea why someone who votes in a state like Florida or Michigan would support devaluing their own vote by supporting the electoral college, but so be it. I guess you just think that the votes of the few people living in the middle of the country mean more than yours. Personally I disagree, but hey, work on that self esteem maybe skippy.

I have absolutely no idea why someone who votes in a state like Michigan would want to put the prospect of jobs, funding, and other federal government decisions for their state in the hands of representatives that are trying to get re-elected in California, Texas, Florida, New York, and a few other states.

Mostly because of your “few other states” descriptor and being in the 10th most populous state as well as the 14th largest metro area. Even if it were just people voting in New York that gets their attention, which is a gross over exaggeration, that makes a lot more sense than people like Roc in Montana making my decisions for me (as is the case for you as well. Hell even more so. God knows you won’t back off of your nonsense position though.)

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:I would argue the Electoral College was not about protecting small states from large cities. Instead it was about handing over the selection of the president to "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens" (Hamilton, Fed No. 68). Given the importance of the position, it seems the framers felt the people were not fit to make the decision regardless of geography.

I am not saying it is wrong to make this argument - it is certainly an argument that can be made - but I do not think it was the framer's primary motivation for the Electoral College. I also think the argument ties the origins of the Electoral College to slavery, which would clearly make it outdated and worthy of an amendment abolishing its use or some kind of significant reform.

Lastly, I think we can flip the small state argument and suggest small states are over represented in the EC. In Wyoming, you have approximately one elector per 193,000 people. Whereas in California that number is approximately one to 720,000.

That's true that the Electoral College wasn't about protecting the small states originally, and I don't disagree that the person to electoral vote ratio should be more even. I just don't think it should be done away with entirely.

My argument was more about Travis' comment on the senate. Smaller states would get severely dicked over if we only had the House. The top 9 states in the House represent a majority of the votes. I can't see how that is a good thing.

I didn’t say “only have the house.” I said “ludicrous senate that was designed 300 years ago that needs to be blown up and redone.” I stand by that. The senate, as a concept, is broken.

steveschneider wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:I would argue the Electoral College was not about protecting small states from large cities. Instead it was about handing over the selection of the president to "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens" (Hamilton, Fed No. 68). Given the importance of the position, it seems the framers felt the people were not fit to make the decision regardless of geography.

I am not saying it is wrong to make this argument - it is certainly an argument that can be made - but I do not think it was the framer's primary motivation for the Electoral College. I also think the argument ties the origins of the Electoral College to slavery, which would clearly make it outdated and worthy of an amendment abolishing its use or some kind of significant reform.

Lastly, I think we can flip the small state argument and suggest small states are over represented in the EC. In Wyoming, you have approximately one elector per 193,000 people. Whereas in California that number is approximately one to 720,000.

Yeah, California has the largest economy in the country, a good chunk of their taxes goes towards red states and they get the same number of senate votes as Wyoming? Bunch of BS.

However, Wyoming does get less than 2% of the representation in the House that California gets.

If the 9 states that represent a majority in the House made all the decisions, what kind of attention do you think Wyoming would get from the Federal Government, whether it be jobs, contracts, or other interests of that state?

The combination of the Senate and House forces compromise between the big and small states, which is vital to a healthy country as wide and diverse as ours.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
I have absolutely no idea why someone who votes in a state like Michigan would want to put the prospect of jobs, funding, and other federal government decisions for their state in the hands of representatives that are trying to get re-elected in California, Texas, Florida, New York, and a few other states.

Mostly because of your “few other states” descriptor and being in the 10th most populous state as well as the 14th largest metro area. Even if it were just people voting in New York that gets their attention, which is a gross over exaggeration, that makes a lot more sense than people like Roc in Montana making my decisions for me (as is the case for you as well. Hell even more so. God knows you won’t back off of your nonsense position though.)

Pot, meet kettle.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Mostly because of your “few other states” descriptor and being in the 10th most populous state as well as the 14th largest metro area. Even if it were just people voting in New York that gets their attention, which is a gross over exaggeration, that makes a lot more sense than people like Roc in Montana making my decisions for me (as is the case for you as well. Hell even more so. God knows you won’t back off of your nonsense position though.)

Pot, meet kettle.

Mine isn’t nonsense Miami. Mine comes from a place of advancing my own interests. Yours comes from.... being argumentative? I have no idea really.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
That's true that the Electoral College wasn't about protecting the small states originally, and I don't disagree that the person to electoral vote ratio should be more even. I just don't think it should be done away with entirely.

My argument was more about Travis' comment on the senate. Smaller states would get severely dicked over if we only had the House. The top 9 states in the House represent a majority of the votes. I can't see how that is a good thing.

I didn’t say “only have the house.” I said “ludicrous senate that was designed 300 years ago that needs to be blown up and redone.” I stand by that. The senate, as a concept, is broken.

So what would you want to do with the senate, or other body as a second chamber of Congress if you don't want only the House? Serious question, as I'm genuinely curious what you have in mind since you don't want only the House, but also don't want the Senate.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Pot, meet kettle.

Mine isn’t nonsense Miami. Mine comes from a place of advancing my own interests. Yours comes from.... being argumentative? I have no idea really.

Well, let's see.  

A) I did clarify (or "back off", if it makes you feel better) my stance about the electoral college.  

B) If you can't see that my opinion on the senate comes from a place of advancing the interests of everyone instead of being selfish like you, then I don't know what to tell you, because it's obvious you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying, or you're being purposefully obtuse.

As a side note, I apologize if I'm jumping to conclusions here, but I was under the impression that a lot of your political views were less about self-interest than your views on the EC/Senate?  I admit that I don't know your views for sure, so maybe I'm just taking your anti-Trump feelings to mean that you're more aligned with Liberal/Democrat views, which I tend to think are often less selfish.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I didn’t say “only have the house.” I said “ludicrous senate that was designed 300 years ago that needs to be blown up and redone.” I stand by that. The senate, as a concept, is broken.

So what would you want to do with the senate, or other body as a second chamber of Congress if you don't want only the House? Serious question, as I'm genuinely curious what you have in mind since you don't want only the House, but also don't want the Senate.

Honestly, I don’t have a “we should do xyz” in mind here. I would have already said what. More at the “this isn’t right, it needs to be fixed.” point. Maybe kick around some kind of proportionality. I mean, California or Texas easily could be 3 or 4 different states and it would make perfect sense. Maybe we just represent that, somehow. Controlled proportionality is a word that keeps coming up in my head. So yeah, you don’t have 50 from California and 1 from Wyoming, but you have, say, 4 and 2. I dunno I’m honesty just spit balling.

It isn’t just straight up how the senate is made up though, but also the responsibilities each chamber has. You mention two balanced chambers, but it isn’t balanced. The house doesn’t confirm the executives cabinet or the executives judges, the senate does. So the senate and the executive, both of whom are elected in a system that massively favors small states get all that power and the popularly elected House can’t do shit about it. That’s not right and it isn’t a balanced combination like you mentioned.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Mine isn’t nonsense Miami. Mine comes from a place of advancing my own interests. Yours comes from.... being argumentative? I have no idea really.

Well, let's see.  

A) I did clarify (or "back off", if it makes you feel better) my stance about the electoral college.  

B) If you can't see that my opinion on the senate comes from a place of advancing the interests of everyone instead of being selfish like you, then I don't know what to tell you, because it's obvious you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying, or you're being purposefully obtuse.

As a side note, I apologize if I'm jumping to conclusions here, but I was under the impression that a lot of your political views were less about self-interest than your views on the EC/Senate?  I admit that I don't know your views for sure, so maybe I'm just taking your anti-Trump feelings to mean that you're more aligned with Liberal/Democrat views, which I tend to think are often less selfish.

Oh I’m super liberal, but I don’t think it’s right to call either side inherently more or less selfish. At some point I think everyone should be considering how the system is working for them. Thing is I just think that there is an extremely tiny percentage of hyper rich people who republicans actually do a good job for. The rest of the country not so much.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
So what would you want to do with the senate, or other body as a second chamber of Congress if you don't want only the House? Serious question, as I'm genuinely curious what you have in mind since you don't want only the House, but also don't want the Senate.

Honestly, I don’t have a “we should do xyz” in mind here. I would have already said what. More at the “this isn’t right, it needs to be fixed.” point. Maybe kick around some kind of proportionality. I mean, California or Texas easily could be 3 or 4 different states and it would make perfect sense. Maybe we just represent that, somehow. Controlled proportionality is a word that keeps coming up in my head. So yeah, you don’t have 50 from California and 1 from Wyoming, but you have, say, 4 and 2. I dunno I’m honesty just spit balling.

It isn’t just straight up how the senate is made up though, but also the responsibilities each chamber has. You mention two balanced chambers, but it isn’t balanced. The house doesn’t confirm the executives cabinet or the executives judges, the senate does. So the senate and the executive, both of whom are elected in a system that massively favors small states get all that power and the popularly elected House can’t do shit about it. That’s not right and it isn’t a balanced combination like you mentioned.

Fair enough. The only thing I would say about the Senate confirming judges and the cabinet is that just that a few states could effectively make the decision on their own if it was up to the House. But maybe that's less of an issue since the President is the one nominating people, so it's not like deciding where to build a military base or something.

Getting back to Kamala Harris.

Tulsi Gabbard said almost exactly what I hoped someone would say to Kamala. Good shit.