Or maybe the OP should leave well enough alone until the body's cold. Dude, they waited 8 months between Elizabeth's death and Charles' coronation, the Championship was 3 weeks ago... The todo list for glowing in the championship aura is still there (UFRs still coming we hope we hope we hope).
I'm all for the king is dead long live the king - but SM is in charge, things are moving, the banner's not hurting you. If it's still up in June or July, that's the time for this post.
Is Nick Saban one of the best coaches of his era? Sure, is he in the discussion for the all timer, fine. I don't accept his "hardware and jewely" as an argument for the crown, because they're tainted, full stop. His program broke the rules (though I can't prove it, I don't need to, this is my opinion based on what evidence I know to access). So, you can imply sour grapes, but your argument for it is (in my never humble opinion) baseless, because his, "hardware and jewelry" is moot.
He's got a great record in big games - but - look at Bama's schedule next year. Their three biggest games are (probably) UGA, @LSU, and Oklahoma. His opponents in the week's prior are bye, bye, Mercer... It's a HELL of a lot easier to win games with 2 weeks to prepare, and one thing I'm very willing to give credit to Saban for is one of the best ever with lead time. Still, next year's schedule is standard issue for the SEC. Occasionally one of them will get the equivalent of a PSU->Maryland, but you'll never find a PSU->Maryland->OSU stretch, which is, frankly, _NORMAL_ for M. You'll point back to my original statement, play the team in front of you. Valid, but when one has ESPN, the SEC, and the NCAA all putting their thumbs on the scale in your favor, and then having the gall to tell me the scales are equal, my ability to credit the bologna is limited.
So... Is Nick Saban a good coach, yes. Is he the greatest of all time? I don't think so, because of incomplete data. He was merely good at MSU, he was bad to very bad in the NFL. When the scales weren't crooked, he was at best, a good coach. The end.
I don't understand how Michigan can go through "cheeseburgers" and sign-gate compared to North Carolina or Kansas or 'Bama and someone can say that Saban is "peerless" - dude stood taller because he had a leg up and the NCAA helping him/putting their thumb on other programs. Pete Carroll wasn't "great" at USC, he cheated, full stop. Props that he won his games, and I'm not interested in taking anything away from people's trophy cases, the past is the past, but, "peerless"?!? The only peerless to be argued is whether he cheated better than the other cheaters and/or got more help from ESPN and the NCAA than did others.
He won, good on him, but "best coach" is laughable at best.
I often make the argument against whiners early this season that we, 'hadn't played anybody' that a team can only play the team in front of them. Win your games. So that said, Saban played with the players he had and against the opponents he had, and won his games, good on him.
That said, do I think Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire are the greatest home run hitters of all time? No, sorry, they had an extra boost that wasn't supposed to be used. It's very easy to say the lack of NCAA oversight on paying players (and the SEC deliberately protecting the schedules of it's top teams) gave Saban an edge - and I don't have proof. Still, I don't think it's any coincidence that formal opening of NIL and the sudden come-to-earth of the SEC happened simultaneously. 'Bama's still Bama, and they're going to be good, but when Bama's not the big bag anymore, they'll prove to be just another top school.
Saban will never be the, "GOAT" coach of college football to me. A good coach, and all due respect for taking care of the opponents in front of him, but dude had a stool to stand on that much of the rest of the country didn't; it sure makes it easier to stand tallest.
Brian: If Michigan wins out Harbaugh should offer to split it with FSU. If Alabama and FSU win out, FSU should be the national champion.
If FSU beats UGA. FSU should be in the playoff because the justification to have a playoff is that the championship is decided on the field. They still have a job to do on the field. If UGA beats them even though kids are sitting out and one of the undefeated teams wins out (please be M, please be M, please be M!), well, it's still decided on the field... UMich will have beaten the team that beat the team that beat FSU.
That said, while I was grouchy about splitting with Nebraska, I'd be fine with this one, they'd have a no-BS incredible season and frankly, the one-fingered salute to the committee by winning that game would be akin to our one-fingered salute to the B1G by beating OSU despite all they could do to stop us, and I can respect that.
it's 12 teams next season, so to, "eliminate the last vestige of hope that anyone will schedule a meaningful OOC game again" argument leaves something to be desired. To counter your hyperbole, putting Bama in over Texas eliminates the last vestige of hope that anyone will ever take the regular season seriously again... Texas went to Bama and won going away. Whether in September or November is irrelevant. Schedule quality will be a factor, and a good loss against a great team will be worth much more in a 12-team format than any win over a cupcake.
I assume FSU will be sat in what is a travesty. Control what's in front of you, win your games, the end. They did, ugly or pretty, they did in fact win. And, since we only have the idiotic playoff so that the season ends with a game instead of a vote, the message is clear, winning uber alles.
What right has the SEC to a spot? Because Georgia was #1? They lost, winning uber alles. Bama beat them? Bama lost to Texas at Tuscaloosa, winning uber alles. We heard arguments during the game that Georgia should be in, if they do, every league should sit out and end the NCAA altogether. Full stop.
We have a playoff so that the championship is decided _on the field_ nothing else. So dropping subjective arguments is against the entire intent of having the playoff. Win. Your. Games.
No, that's a mature mentality. I expect to be 12-0 after The Game. I have every reason to believe M will be 12-0. If I root for a scenario where my only in to the playoff is being 13-0, I'm not playing the whole field. The players are preparing to win, the fans should be rooting for the best of any given scenarios, and that means rooting against undefeated teams.
I hate playoffs, I hate the delusional nature of national championships, I am the grouchy get off my lawn asshole. I _still_ choose 1 100% of the time. Your concerns are unwarranted, the "downsides" of what you've indicated there are manageable, the upsides are tremendous.
We'll be fine if Harbaugh moves, we've got 4 future head coaches showing their stuff through the non-conference. We'll be fine if 20 players go to the pros - You think having 20 players go to the pros in 1 year won't help us in recruiting?!? "Come play for us, play for the championships on the biggest stage; we've got playing time available, and we put kids in the NFL." OMG terrible recruiting pitch, no 5 star ever wanted to hear that...
Even if your worst case comes true, 5 years of "purgatory" while we rebuild, it's been 26 years since I was in the Rose Bowl one beautiful magical New Years night in 1998... I'd take 5 years to get back (it wouldn't take 5 years to get back).
Best interests of themselves and the group... This conference realignment garbage is bad for the sport. Then again - the tv deals are short-sighted on the part of the networks. Neither side is smart enough to see what's two steps passed this insanity, and it's really sad.
"Maybe I'm underestimating the South but why on earth would anyone want to visit this place? For one, you could just actually tour AMERICA if you're already here AND how the fuck do you talk about the American story without acknowledging how deeply fucked our history is? "
I'm just spit-balling here, but bear with me -- because you won't be there? Because there are people who disagree with your opinion about America's history? No, they're not ignorant, nor bigoted, nor less open than you, nor does their . They. Just. Disagree.
If one wants to find crappy stuff in the background of an individual or a group (be it country or culture or whatever) - they'll find it. Every country everywhere has had slavery in it's past. Every culture everywhere has had injustice, prejudice, and exploitation. Sometimes, it's worth exploring the successes - not just dwell in the mistakes. People who just sit and wallow in crapulence - WE GET THEM MENTAL HELP. If the people in a given culture just believe their culture and their history is only "deeply fucked" without ever looking around and remembering that we have some wins - we should get them help...
We were the first country to seriously consider outlawing slavery. Ok, it took some time to get there, but you don't cure depression with one visit to a therapist... and btw - in historical context it was a blink of an eye. Humans have been flying longer than it took us to get our shit together about slavery. (Ok, admittedly it took less time to go from Kitty Hawk to the Moon than it took to go from Independence Hall to the 14th Amendment, but I'll give us credit for learning faster :) )
We were the first country to codify into the very bedrock of our nation the concept that you can call our country, "deeply fucked" without pausing to wonder if you're going to disappear in the middle of the night never to be seen again.
The world ushered in after WW2 which is largely shaped by western culture has seen the greatest improvement of human welfare and living quality for all of humanity ever. Full stop ever. It's got a long way to go before poverty is gone, and there's a lot more work to do - but you can't make improvements without moving forward.
So, yeah - because people don't want to spend a day delving into your mental problems :) That's why.
Woodson had a couple bad breaks before he got a chance to be his full awesome. Ok, DL have shorter (player) lifespans than CB, but Mo will feast again.
Dodgers have been near the top of the payroll and it took them 32 years. Tigers have been up there, and haven't won in 36 (and counting). Yankees are perennial top salary and haven't won in more than a decade.
Big budget helps, but can't guarantee anything. You have to have coaching, you have to have chemistry, you have to have luck, that's why sports is compelling.
The Soviet citizens _suffered_ more than the average US citizen, yes, this is true. Absorbed more damage, ok. But contributed? No. NO. Did I say no, because ROFLMAO no.
Look, who contributed the most is a subjective that can be argued a lot of ways, and answered in a lot of good ways based on how one wants to measure. I can make a solid case that the UK gave the most - unlike the US and USSR which ended the war in stronger positions than they started, the UK actually gave everything it had to stop Nazism and (to a lesser extent) Imperial Japan. That's the fun of such arguments, there is no objective "correct" so the discussion is perpetual.
It's very easy for the soviets to say "we would have walked", well yeah, when the alternative to walking forward is machine guns behind you, you walk forward. That's not contribution, that's coercion.
Let's not get into patting ol' Stalin too firmly, this is a guy who signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement that divided Poland up without their consent. This is the guy that started the Winter War. This is the guy who deliberately starved MILLIONS of his own citizens because they had the temerity to exist as proof that Marxism is fundamentally flawed. This is the guy who let the Nazis get to Moscow due in no small part because he purged (you know, put on a wall regardless of evidence...) his officer corps months before Barbarossa kicked off. He has more blood on his hands than does Hitler, he was just more Russian about his sociopathic megalomania than was Adolf.
When we're incapable of finding truly worthy examples to look up to (flawed or not) we stagnate as a species. History is rife with examples, but the simplest is the "dark ages" (I know, not all "that" dark, but bear with me a moment). Rome, especially later Rome was a mess, they were still _the_ example of organized civilization in western Europe. After 453, advancement slowed to a crawl, and while life wasn't nearly as "dark" as sometimes reported, social progress didn't get back to Rome's levels for a thousand years.
Perspective is great, and I have no problem pointing to the greatest generation as imperfect - but that doesn't mean A) that you should be focusing on flaws over their accomplishments, which you are or B) that there aren't staggering differences in the difficulties they faced relative to the challenges for those that followed, so saying, "like us, they were deeply flawed" is, at best like suggesting a 4 year old put on a sock so they've overcome the same daily challenges as a parent.
The Soviets convinced Hitler to break himself on Stalingrad instead of doing smart things and waste his army in Greece. The Soviets convinced him not to counter D-Day, and were the ones flying the daytime bombing runs stripping down the replenishment capacity. The Soviets refused the shipments of food and arms America was sending to northern ports because they didn't need them! The Soviets held down Japan too which is what allowed the paltry Americans to sweep up the token parts.
Or maybe it was a team effort; a great many people from many countries had to commit themselves - all too often sacrifice themselves - to accomplish the defeat of the axis powers. Without the US + UK, the Soviets lose. Without the UK + Soviets, the US response is pointless. Without the US + Soviets, the UK gets run over.
tyranny of the minority? 46.1 vs 48.2 is hardly some tiny cabal overpowering the masses. 92+ % of elections the person with the most votes has won.
It's ridiculous to argue that we're descending towards some monolith of tyranny. The democrats will win again likely either this year or 2024. Then the republicans again in '28 or '32. And guess what -- that's a VERY GOOD THING. Here's a tip... in politics - if your side always wins, they're both cheating, and the bad guys.
More ideas = good. Even if that means there's donkey shit and elephant shit on the lawn occasionally.
"For every vote in California, the most populous state, a voter in Wyoming gets 57 votes for president. Go back to math class."
California, current population estimate per wikipedia ~ 39,512,223. 55 electoral votes (53 representatives 2 senators). 33,512,223/55 = 718,404 people per electoral vote.
Wyoming, current population estimate per wikipedia ~ 578,759. 3 electoral votes (1 representative 2 senators). 578759/3 = 192,920 people per electoral vote.
718404/192920 = 3.72.
---
Plessy vs. Ferguson was an EIGHTEEN ninety-six ruling. 1996 was 24 years ago.
---
You and I may disagree on the efficacy and value of the electoral college, but when I try to be condescending, I get my facts right.
Will made a comment for himself. HIMSELF. You made a comment about the intents of the Senate, and snidely implied he keep up. What the senate intends has not one fucking thing to do with what Will believes. You are the asshole here.
I didn't comment on what the Senate will do. I think you're right, that they'll fall in line and put Trump's nominee to the vote. Not because it's the moral choice, because it's the politically correct choice. If the situation were reversed - i.e. Rep. president in 2016, democratic senate, Merrick Garland would be on the bench right now, and if it were a dem. president and a democratic senate today, they'd put it up for a vote. Not because morality comes anywhere near this decision - those who play at the national level have a universal (entirely erroneous) assumption that power is meant to be used, and not using it is (again entirely erroneous) is a dereliction. Any other decision would require a far more mature leadership cadre, and no one in our national leadership lives in the same city with maturity.
1 rep for each 30k people would have us somewhere around 11k congresspeople, before even looking at representatives for DC or the territories. That's a difficult # to comprehend. I'm all for diluting the power of every position in the capital, but I'm not certain whether or not this could function. If nothing else, it would be an interesting mental experiment.
It's not about rural vs. urban (there are no rural states, there are states with big cities and states without big cities). It's culture. The culture of big cities (while unique to each city) is more similar to other big cities than the culture of rural parts of states or smaller cities.
The EC protects all of us from the culture of the cities dominating everything. If there were a single extra-terrestrial living in our country, who had unusual customs that weren't hurtful to anyone -- let's say they eat rocks for some innocuous example -- would you be ok if all the other people in the country were allowed to vote that eating rocks is against the law? The popular vote carried it, right?
Even if you weren't the ET, I hope you'd say that protecting the ET's right to exist as his culture dictates is probably worth us not being allowed to trample his rock-eating just out of spite.
Well, the EC makes sure the culture of big cities does not get to dominate the executive branch.
Even in a world where the cities really were the font of all good --- which they're not now, nor ever have been --- giving them power strips rights from the rest.
And lest you've failed to notice, the majority vote getter has won better than 92% of presidential elections, it's not like there's a vast rash of minority elections, and it's not like we're talking about some some private cabal are voting in the president, they're all within 5% of each other except for 1824.
So yes, I fear that populous CITIES will impose their will on everyone - they already have plenty of advantages over everyone else in too many ways.
That you haven't seen, "much of a case" is that you disagree, not that you haven't seen a case being made. I don't need you to agree, I do wish you'd stop lying to yourself about ideas in the world you don't agree with though, it makes me think your brain stopped growing about the time of that social studies class...
Just because McConnell has said something doesn't mean everyone on the right automatically has to support his decision. Part of being a grown up is self-determination. You should try to keep up.
There's a culture of the US, there's a culture of Massachusetts, there's a culture of Boston, and there's a culture of specific neighborhoods - and even a culture of a household. They're all similar, but each one has its own unique looks compared to like scale polities. The reason there are states is to preserve the idea that the culture of those living in Arizona - and the issues, circumstances, and problems for those living there don't get overshadowed by Michigan. What if Michigan got to make up all the laws for the country? We'd have laws about the great lakes determining water policy for desert areas in Arizona - laws that make great sense here wouldn't make any sense in AZ, and in many cases would be actively detrimental.
Why should (_the votes of_) a state with 570k people matter more than (_the votes of_) a state with 40 million? For the same reason as people seek to protect racial and/or economic minorities. To prevent a tyranny of the majority.
You don't know what I've "decided", so stop pre-judging.
First, I've stated in several posts in this here thread that DC probably should have representation. And just because I don't happen to think it should be a state itself doesn't mean that sound arguments couldn't change my mind --- But! The trouble is, there's a great number of people who think the world is necessarily antagonistic. I'm not your enemy. What I am is a thinking human, who wants REAL ARGUMENTS, not this "you're side bad, my side good" self-deluded bullshit.
Second, the electoral college does more to PROTECT people's equal rights than a straight popular vote. It's a system that makes sure that big cities don't get to get only their way because there happen to be more people there. Let's pretend that all people of one racial tone thought one way (the way bigots like you think) - White is still the biggest racial group in this country. Let's have a popular vote, all the white people vote exactly the same way, and that's how you get tyranny of race. The EC makes sure we don't get a tyranny of big cities. If you were half the open-minded person you lie to yourself that you are, you'd understand that.
I'm going to assume that you wouldn't be ok with a tyranny by all the white people over all the other skin tones. Why would you be ok with a tyranny of the big cities over the small or rural areas? It is EXACTLY the same thing.
Every vote has to matter, in order for that to happen, you have to overbalance some. That means some system like the electoral college.
There's room to make adjustments, but the system is a net win for everyone.
As far as "the electoral college just happens to produce electoral outcomes that you favor". First, you're aware that since WW2, the two sides have (basically) traded back and forth, yes? Second, that the electoral college doesn't ALWAYS produce outcomes you like is why you don't like it, so get off your fucking horse. The EC protects people from tyranny, nothing more, nothing less.
Short answer, sortof yes they should. Let's pretend for a moment that race is a real thing and not just a shade. In that world, all white people would vote identically. Would it be ok if white people got to decide all the laws because they're the biggest racial group?
I hope your answer is no. EVERYONE's vote should matter, whether they're a small town or a big city, and that means that not every vote can count exactly evenly. The best way to make sure the little places are heard is something like the electoral college.
DC is weird. You shouldn't be a state. You probably should have a representative. You definitely shouldn't be managed by congress anymore.
In many ways, DC should become a test ground for how to manage metropolitan areas in our country. It sucks that NYC decides for Albany, Rochester, and all the rest of NY what their presidential vote is. It sucks that LA, SF, and SJ decide for the east part of California, etc. It'd be great if for presidential purposes (and maybe for national representation (but not for states), that could be explored. It's tricky, and there's some bear traps waiting to get us, but in the intent of better elections and representation for all, it's worth looking at.
I've mentioned this elsewhere - (and you'd do better to say Wyoming, they're the most "over" represented state)
The answer is that this was an unintended consequence of the House of Representatives locking it's # at 435 in 1929. It was a bad decision. I'm 100% entirely in favor of fixing this bad decision!!!
The constitution calls for one representative for every 30k people. That's probably untenable. But, let's say we use Wyoming (approximate population 550k people) and then we set that as the basis for representatives. So we'd have (approximately) 565 total representatives right now, (it'd be higher, because state populations won't divide evenly of course, and I would tend to round up early, at say 200k, so if a state has 1,300,000 people, they'd get 3 representatives, 550k x2 + 200k simple math). The plus would be, representatives would be a lot closer to "accurately" representing the same number of people, and it would be much harder for the equation to get really out of whack than locking either the #of people per rep or the total # of reps.
The trend line is towards more and more urban population centers. 2020 aside, and it will be short-lived.
Straight popular vote means that rural cultures are entirely left out the further along we go. This is exactly why the electoral college was instituted in the first place.
I'm all for states distributing their electoral votes based more on voting distribution rather than as 100% draws, (i.e. I'm very much pro no more red-state/blue-state), but I'm never going to be a fan of NY/TX/CA/FL deciding the presidency, which is the trend line if we go to a straight popular vote. Why would a presidential candidate ever consider visiting Wyoming and hearing those citizens wants and needs, but only getting to talk to say 20k people at a time, when they could go to California and talk to 50k at a time? The only reason is because those 20k people in Wyoming have 3 electoral votes and those 50k in California have 1.
Now, sure I want the unequal representative issue fixed, but I've talked about that in 3 different posts on this page alone, so I'll eave that there.
There are more options, first past the post elections and such, which would (hopefully) open things up so that it's not always a two party election. I'm entirely in favor of considering options.
However, if you take the popular vote, the smaller towns and rural areas will lose. The population is only going to increasingly move towards population centers, and those population centers will increasingly consolidate. This year is bucking the trend, but humans are shockingly short-sighted, they'll remember why they like downtowns, and NY will grow again. Sooner than anybody might think.
I disagree with a lot of the things both major political parties do, and I'll freely admit I think the current president is an ass, but I at least have the moral integrity to look at the REALITY of all those stories above. And sure, there's imperfect in every one of them, but it's just about always - just as it was in the case of Pres Obama, and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan (which is as far back as I've been looking, but I have a lot of faith before them) people doing the best they could and making the best they could with the situations in front of them. Life is compromises, get over it. Sometimes you're going to agree with the party in charge, sometimes you're going to disagree, but they're both trying to do the most good they can, I promise.
For what it's worth children were separated on the border from their parents under Obama too, and Bush and Clinton. And for that matter, it's happened under every president and every country and every leader throughout all of history- if for example, a parent committed a crime, that parent would be separated from their children, it's called arrest... Crossing the border illegally is a crime, parent goes to holding cell, child gets sent to protective services until decisions can be made. It's not that fucking complicated. Are there mistakes made, are there bad situations, YEP, that's why there's inspectors and people doing walk throughs, and (if they had integrity) a free press to try to keep all this honest.
We do a really remarkably good job, period. No ifs and or buts. It's not perfect, but I absolutely positively completely and entirely promise you this - YOU WOULD NOT DO BETTER. Not on the overall, you might get a few of them better, you would get most of them worse. Because every one of those situations you put above has to be operated by people, and people are not perfect. Stop lying to yourself.
Can we change some laws, can we make things better, sure, of course, but that's life, we make incremental changes to keep making things better. That's also why we need people of all different mindsets and political perspectives, because MORE IDEAS ARE THE ONLY WAY WE MOVE FORWARD. We need ideas, everybody's ideas, some will be good, some will be bad, but we need all of them, if for no better reason than to use the bad ideas to help refine the good ones.
Get off your bigoted high horse. It's covered in bullshit.
Insofar as the president shouldn't have as much power as he does (if you disagree, think about whichever guy you last disliked, think about all the ways you think that guy abused his power, and then think, hrm, if the position had less power to abuse, maybe we'd all be better off...) - the position is still supposed to be as representative of the country as a whole as it can be. As much as that could be argued as the population as a whole, the population in NY has one culture (a varied, mixed, and amazingly arrayed culture, but live in NY, then live in LA, Bronx and Manhattan are MUCH closer to each other than either is to Hollywood). I'd rather the varied cultures get represented as much as possible, rather than simply the majority populations. That's why the electoral college was instituted. New Hampshire didn't want to be overshadowed by Massachusetts or Virginia, they had a unique and interesting point of view all their own.
Or as an analogy, what if all the people of each skin tone voted identically - would you be ok if the largest skin tone vote just won every time simply because they were largest and damn all the rest? I kindof hope not...
I'd love to correct it, it's one of those happy fuckups that make me wish our Federal government would stop mucking around so often, it almost always creates unintended consequences which suck. Amazing how often the original constitution comes back to prove that all those balances, all those compromises really did try to cover as much as they possibly could - and why neither party should have all the power ever.
In 1929, the House locked their # at 435. While it would be ... unweildy to go back to the original 30k people per representative as originally written, we could do something like looking at the currently lowest population state (Wyoming @ ~ 550k people), and using that as a basis for representatives, so that every state gets representatives based on (approximately) 1 rep per 550k people (or maybe 250k or something like that).
I'm not going to argue the electoral college is flawless, among other things I'd like to see better proportionality and open the house back up so we can balance things back out, so if the smallest state has 550k population (~ Wyoming's current), that's what a representative is, and so California gets however many representatives based on one rep = ~ 550k people.
The people of the territories have never had a presidential vote, so I'm not moved by the territorial vote, though I'm not against the idea. Obviously the framers didn't intend for semi-permanent territories. Though, we should look at ways of trying to make it less ... cozy to be a territory. Puerto Rico would almost make the top half of a population list already if they were to become a state, for example.
I'm unmoved at all by Washington DC. It has 3 electors, and it's a shithole mess that I do not have a perfect fix for. It should NOT be a state. It probably should have more autonomy than it does. Ideally, I'd break off most metropolitan areas for electoral purposes, give them electors and representatives, but not senators. Detroit shouldn't dictate how Michigan goes just because it's big, Hell's votes should count too.
in straight economics, dollars given away (both charity by citizens and foreign aide), by tons of goods donated, by hours given in volunteer service *all by large margins
By lives given to solve problems in other places for no benefit other than a hopefully better future for all.
By our history - our will to improve ourselves, to fix our problems and advance our culture and our species.
Everyone is given the choice - and not voting IS a choice. "Of those who are interested in making their choice known" is WAY better than sitting around trying to get 100% of people to make a decision.
So 100% people (of age) vote. 40% of them choose not to have their vote counted, that's not the same thing as not existing.
yeah, none of that's true. Like not one sentence you've written there includes a correct statement. It's impressive.
Oh wait, "I personally believe..." That's subjective, not judged true or false. So no true statements, and a neutral. Still, sheesh.
Among the worst, the electoral college does give voting rights to people not states - it makes sure California, Texas, Florida, and New York don't get to tell everyone else what all the laws are. So it gives voting rights to all the other people in 46 other states, isn't that great!
oh, and unicameralism is the worst, but thanks for the suggestion.
First, their opinions don't matter more than everyone else's, for 8 years, the left was in charge, and 8 years before that the right, and 8 years before that the left, and 12 years before that the right, and 4 years left, and 8 years right and 12 years left and 8 years right and 20 years left and 12 years right and 8 left, etc etc. etc. (in the White House, congress is obviously a bit less consistent).
Sharing power between the sides is good for everyone, mostly because neither side has perfect answers.
If everything was a straight popular vote, our country would have died more than 200 years ago, and (among other bad effects) slavery would still exist. So... let's not do galacticly stupid, mmmkay? Republican government (the republican form of government, not the Republican party) is the best way we as a species have found to run a country. If you really need to know how long humans have known straight democracy was a bad idea, well, Plato put the proof on paper TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED years ago. Pure democracy is not a "progressive" idea, it's one of the most regressive ideas one can espouse.
Yep, you'll lose some you want to win, you'll win some you should've lost. That's life in the big game, deal.
We live in the most giving, most caring country in human history. Whether left or right, we all want good things for everyone. We disagree how to get there, but if you really think that the other side wants badness for others, you need to go talk to real people. I disagree with lots of people, I don't disagree with their intentions, just their execution of those intentions.
I don't believe for one second this country is irredeemably broken. What we do need is more grown up behavior, and less teenage-level "dealing with people who disagree with me is hard, I quit". Fuck that. Cuz I guarantee, if the left quits the right, there will be new lines within each country, and you'll break those, and again and again until you have individuals (and some family units). Humanity requires us to learn to live and accept and adapt to each other, that's the way this works. That's how peace happens, and progress, and maturity. Not quitting. Fuck that nonsense.
people vote, but we are not one people insofar as our daily lives (we are one nation, indivisible, but not one culture indivisible, see how that works?)
And for what it's worth, the electoral college wasn't a north vs. south issue, it was a big states vs. small states issue (by population, not land) - the same as it is today. Do you really think the way California runs itself would work well in Wyoming?
Or better said, should Wyoming get a vote? If we went straight popular vote, Wyoming's population shouldn't bother, their vote will. Never. Count. Again.
If you want to blame someone for the perceived injustice in the electoral college... blame the House of Representatives of 1929, who permanently locked the House to 435 seats. If the house proportioned by population the way the Constitution called for, California would have more votes, and therefore their "popular" vote would weigh more in the electoral college.
So, let's get back to more originalism, let's have a bit less short-sighted stupidity that always has unintended consequences, and WeimyWoodson can be a bit less angsty about shit he clearly doesn't understand in the first place.
Spectacular work. I disagree that it's 100% "luck". You're right, it's not possible to predict '95 NWU, it is possible to see Wisc is the most consistent of the west and notice that OSU has played them... less.
There's also ways to control better and worse positions in a schedule. Ever notice how the SEC championship caliber teams never (okay, rarely) seem to play two "hard" games in a row? It's not an accident. OSU doesn't have MSU/PSU/UM in a row the way UMich has had Wisc/PSU/MSU recently.
And while I don't know the relative gap between when a schedule is made vs. the year it's played, it's not so far that the schedule makers can't see "things", i.e. a senior laden Purdue or similar.
All that said, in the land of "fuck you's" to M, this is a small one, but small things add up, and it's justifiably infuriating that 30 years of this does indicate more than accidental behavior.
It's fascinating to me (not morbidly, just normal sized) that something as fundamental as "people have different perspectives based on life experience" made sense to me back before Obi-Wan's ghost told me in Jedi when I was 6, but you don't understand that now.
What about the fact that people see the world differently than you do is so fascinating to you? I'm genuinely curious.
"The amount of misinformation and everyone not being on the same page is the most worrying thing to me."
First, 'misinformation' is itself crap. Everything is still in learning mode. What we knew in January vs. what we knew in April vs. what we know now is staggering. And science isn't about _knowing_ anyway, it's about asking questions, and NEVER being done asking questions. Then there's the difficulty of scientists that disagree; it's easy to interpret data in different ways, so information is always going to be based on different sources and perspectives.
Don't worry so much about, 'everyone not being on the same page', that's foundational to any society bigger than 1 person, and true for alot of solo folks too. Your parents aren't always on the same page. You're not always on the same page with them. That's actually a good thing overall. Life has very few 1-size-fits-all answers.
or, tl;dr - you're worrying about the wrong stuff. Do your best for you, do your best for your family. Do your best not to judge your neighbors even if you think they're doing it, "wrong", cuz a lot of the time they think the same about you. That's plenty.
35k people per year die in car accidents. If you ask a health expert whether riding in cars is dangerous, their answer ought to be, "yes". Their job is not to evaluate risk vs. reward, it's to present and mitigate risk. So I can CLEARLY not choose the solutions in front of them...
MSU + PSU among other places have dismissed presidents within the last decade for demonstrating that they are untrustworthy. So I can CLEARLY not choose the solutions in front of them...
The virus originated in China, whose human population is entirely composed of humans, which is a species of that is entirely made up of imperfect people, so I can CLEARLY not choose the solutions from there...
You've given everything away, I know where the lack of maturity is! It's in thinking ANYBODY has all the right answers!!! Make your own mind up, do your best to get as much information as possible, and act accordingly. You'll screw up sometimes, learn from it, do better. Don't stop making up your own damned mind, because one of the very few things that's certain in this life is it's that there isn't any government agency, health agency, business, anything period that is going to get all the calls right all the time.
This oversimplification assumes "not seriously" means, "not agreeing with BlockM".
Disagreement does not mean what you think it means.
If I were to suggest that 2+2 = 5, and then argue that anyone who disagrees with me doesn't take math seriously, should my opinion carry much weight after that?
Math is a pretty objective thing, whereas leadership is a 99.99% subjective thing. You and I can sit down and agree to talk about math. You say 2+2=4, I say sunsets are more red than orange. You would definitely have a case to say I'm not taking the problem seriously. But - if you say 2+2=4, and I say 2+2=5, I'm not failing to take the problem seriously, I'm simply coming up with a different answer.
Now that we're agreed that most people are taking this seriously, even if they're not coming up with the same answer as you, let's look at being a little more open minded. Please note, I'm not saying your responses are wrong (or right) - I'm simply suggesting that a bit less prejudice in the world isn't a bad thing.
According to your name, you're a teacher, so let's look at this from a different direction --
When bad things happen in your school (big bad things, not kid didn't do their homework), how often is it one kid's fault? How often is there a teacher got distracted, a janitor left a door unlocked, a crazy schedule that left kids unsupervised, and two kids who are ok alone but together create chaos that all comes together to leave huge messes?
Nothing, especially at scale, is one entity's fault 100%. You should know better. When you teach your classes, I hope you do better. A warehouse full of "we know it's dangerous, but we don't know what to do with it and don't want to pay to deal with it" is a bright glowing 'pass the buck' sign to any bureaucracy.
Because she went further than anyone else, and we are still above the national average for deaths relative to our population (7th overall). To say unequivocally that "it worked" is a difficult argument to make. The numbers are better now, they were worse a couple months ago, we don't know if it will look better or worse this coming winter.
Because her behavior at times closer resembled a stern mom rather than a governor. Which I'll acknowledge may be the right tactic in some cases, but it's not for everyone, and so some people are justifiably, "pissy". She was elected to be the state's governor, not its mom.
Because Ohio is still behind MI for cases, deaths, and rules. With a higher population and more population density. This isn't so much a reason to be mad at Gov. Whitmer as much as a very simple stat to suggest while it looks better right now, she sure hasn't gotten this whole virus "right".
Because she and/or her husband have in a couple cases tried to ignore her own rules.
---
This whole thing has been challenging. I wish every day that the world could all be at 0 infected and 0 deaths, and I'd be perfectly happy to make a yearly pilgrimage to bow before her, build her statues, and whatever else if she could accomplish that feat. That she can't means we have to judge her on what's in front of us. No one is doing this perfectly, that's humanity. I'm holding judgement until at least next year when we can look at a much bigger picture - I don't care about this week or the first months, or the lower infected now (thank goodness) -- I care what the results are as we move forward. Do we handle things well opening back up if/when there's a vaccine? Do we distribute the vaccine intelligently? What if there's no vaccine this fall? There's a LOT more governing to do before her final report card comes in on Covid.
On the record I'd LOVE if she got an A+ on that report card. Damn the politics, (because I'll admit I didn't vote for her, and won't in the future), this is about lives, and anyone who hopes for any leader's failure in a crisis just because of politics is pretty disgusting.
Recent Comments
Or maybe the OP should leave well enough alone until the body's cold. Dude, they waited 8 months between Elizabeth's death and Charles' coronation, the Championship was 3 weeks ago... The todo list for glowing in the championship aura is still there (UFRs still coming we hope we hope we hope).
I'm all for the king is dead long live the king - but SM is in charge, things are moving, the banner's not hurting you. If it's still up in June or July, that's the time for this post.
Is Nick Saban one of the best coaches of his era? Sure, is he in the discussion for the all timer, fine. I don't accept his "hardware and jewely" as an argument for the crown, because they're tainted, full stop. His program broke the rules (though I can't prove it, I don't need to, this is my opinion based on what evidence I know to access). So, you can imply sour grapes, but your argument for it is (in my never humble opinion) baseless, because his, "hardware and jewelry" is moot.
He's got a great record in big games - but - look at Bama's schedule next year. Their three biggest games are (probably) UGA, @LSU, and Oklahoma. His opponents in the week's prior are bye, bye, Mercer... It's a HELL of a lot easier to win games with 2 weeks to prepare, and one thing I'm very willing to give credit to Saban for is one of the best ever with lead time. Still, next year's schedule is standard issue for the SEC. Occasionally one of them will get the equivalent of a PSU->Maryland, but you'll never find a PSU->Maryland->OSU stretch, which is, frankly, _NORMAL_ for M. You'll point back to my original statement, play the team in front of you. Valid, but when one has ESPN, the SEC, and the NCAA all putting their thumbs on the scale in your favor, and then having the gall to tell me the scales are equal, my ability to credit the bologna is limited.
So... Is Nick Saban a good coach, yes. Is he the greatest of all time? I don't think so, because of incomplete data. He was merely good at MSU, he was bad to very bad in the NFL. When the scales weren't crooked, he was at best, a good coach. The end.
I don't understand how Michigan can go through "cheeseburgers" and sign-gate compared to North Carolina or Kansas or 'Bama and someone can say that Saban is "peerless" - dude stood taller because he had a leg up and the NCAA helping him/putting their thumb on other programs. Pete Carroll wasn't "great" at USC, he cheated, full stop. Props that he won his games, and I'm not interested in taking anything away from people's trophy cases, the past is the past, but, "peerless"?!? The only peerless to be argued is whether he cheated better than the other cheaters and/or got more help from ESPN and the NCAA than did others.
He won, good on him, but "best coach" is laughable at best.
I often make the argument against whiners early this season that we, 'hadn't played anybody' that a team can only play the team in front of them. Win your games. So that said, Saban played with the players he had and against the opponents he had, and won his games, good on him.
That said, do I think Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire are the greatest home run hitters of all time? No, sorry, they had an extra boost that wasn't supposed to be used. It's very easy to say the lack of NCAA oversight on paying players (and the SEC deliberately protecting the schedules of it's top teams) gave Saban an edge - and I don't have proof. Still, I don't think it's any coincidence that formal opening of NIL and the sudden come-to-earth of the SEC happened simultaneously. 'Bama's still Bama, and they're going to be good, but when Bama's not the big bag anymore, they'll prove to be just another top school.
Saban will never be the, "GOAT" coach of college football to me. A good coach, and all due respect for taking care of the opponents in front of him, but dude had a stool to stand on that much of the rest of the country didn't; it sure makes it easier to stand tallest.
If FSU beats UGA. FSU should be in the playoff because the justification to have a playoff is that the championship is decided on the field. They still have a job to do on the field. If UGA beats them even though kids are sitting out and one of the undefeated teams wins out (please be M, please be M, please be M!), well, it's still decided on the field... UMich will have beaten the team that beat the team that beat FSU.
That said, while I was grouchy about splitting with Nebraska, I'd be fine with this one, they'd have a no-BS incredible season and frankly, the one-fingered salute to the committee by winning that game would be akin to our one-fingered salute to the B1G by beating OSU despite all they could do to stop us, and I can respect that.
it's 12 teams next season, so to, "eliminate the last vestige of hope that anyone will schedule a meaningful OOC game again" argument leaves something to be desired. To counter your hyperbole, putting Bama in over Texas eliminates the last vestige of hope that anyone will ever take the regular season seriously again... Texas went to Bama and won going away. Whether in September or November is irrelevant. Schedule quality will be a factor, and a good loss against a great team will be worth much more in a 12-team format than any win over a cupcake.
I assume FSU will be sat in what is a travesty. Control what's in front of you, win your games, the end. They did, ugly or pretty, they did in fact win. And, since we only have the idiotic playoff so that the season ends with a game instead of a vote, the message is clear, winning uber alles.
What right has the SEC to a spot? Because Georgia was #1? They lost, winning uber alles. Bama beat them? Bama lost to Texas at Tuscaloosa, winning uber alles. We heard arguments during the game that Georgia should be in, if they do, every league should sit out and end the NCAA altogether. Full stop.
We have a playoff so that the championship is decided _on the field_ nothing else. So dropping subjective arguments is against the entire intent of having the playoff. Win. Your. Games.
No, that's a mature mentality. I expect to be 12-0 after The Game. I have every reason to believe M will be 12-0. If I root for a scenario where my only in to the playoff is being 13-0, I'm not playing the whole field. The players are preparing to win, the fans should be rooting for the best of any given scenarios, and that means rooting against undefeated teams.
I hate playoffs, I hate the delusional nature of national championships, I am the grouchy get off my lawn asshole. I _still_ choose 1 100% of the time. Your concerns are unwarranted, the "downsides" of what you've indicated there are manageable, the upsides are tremendous.
We'll be fine if Harbaugh moves, we've got 4 future head coaches showing their stuff through the non-conference. We'll be fine if 20 players go to the pros - You think having 20 players go to the pros in 1 year won't help us in recruiting?!? "Come play for us, play for the championships on the biggest stage; we've got playing time available, and we put kids in the NFL." OMG terrible recruiting pitch, no 5 star ever wanted to hear that...
Even if your worst case comes true, 5 years of "purgatory" while we rebuild, it's been 26 years since I was in the Rose Bowl one beautiful magical New Years night in 1998... I'd take 5 years to get back (it wouldn't take 5 years to get back).
College football as a whole.
Best interests of themselves and the group... This conference realignment garbage is bad for the sport. Then again - the tv deals are short-sighted on the part of the networks. Neither side is smart enough to see what's two steps passed this insanity, and it's really sad.
"Maybe I'm underestimating the South but why on earth would anyone want to visit this place? For one, you could just actually tour AMERICA if you're already here AND how the fuck do you talk about the American story without acknowledging how deeply fucked our history is? "
I'm just spit-balling here, but bear with me -- because you won't be there? Because there are people who disagree with your opinion about America's history? No, they're not ignorant, nor bigoted, nor less open than you, nor does their . They. Just. Disagree.
If one wants to find crappy stuff in the background of an individual or a group (be it country or culture or whatever) - they'll find it. Every country everywhere has had slavery in it's past. Every culture everywhere has had injustice, prejudice, and exploitation. Sometimes, it's worth exploring the successes - not just dwell in the mistakes. People who just sit and wallow in crapulence - WE GET THEM MENTAL HELP. If the people in a given culture just believe their culture and their history is only "deeply fucked" without ever looking around and remembering that we have some wins - we should get them help...
We were the first country to seriously consider outlawing slavery. Ok, it took some time to get there, but you don't cure depression with one visit to a therapist... and btw - in historical context it was a blink of an eye. Humans have been flying longer than it took us to get our shit together about slavery. (Ok, admittedly it took less time to go from Kitty Hawk to the Moon than it took to go from Independence Hall to the 14th Amendment, but I'll give us credit for learning faster :) )
We were the first country to codify into the very bedrock of our nation the concept that you can call our country, "deeply fucked" without pausing to wonder if you're going to disappear in the middle of the night never to be seen again.
The world ushered in after WW2 which is largely shaped by western culture has seen the greatest improvement of human welfare and living quality for all of humanity ever. Full stop ever. It's got a long way to go before poverty is gone, and there's a lot more work to do - but you can't make improvements without moving forward.
So, yeah - because people don't want to spend a day delving into your mental problems :) That's why.
Woodson had a couple bad breaks before he got a chance to be his full awesome. Ok, DL have shorter (player) lifespans than CB, but Mo will feast again.
Dodgers have been near the top of the payroll and it took them 32 years. Tigers have been up there, and haven't won in 36 (and counting). Yankees are perennial top salary and haven't won in more than a decade.
Big budget helps, but can't guarantee anything. You have to have coaching, you have to have chemistry, you have to have luck, that's why sports is compelling.
Because 10-win seasons…
10-1
Because 10-win seasons are cool, Covid seasons are weird, OSU sucks, Harbaugh rules, and dreams are fantastic, but football gods are fickle.
spectacular video, some great choices on your clips.
I muted it about 10s in, please never do that again.
The Soviet citizens _suffered_ more than the average US citizen, yes, this is true. Absorbed more damage, ok. But contributed? No. NO. Did I say no, because ROFLMAO no.
Look, who contributed the most is a subjective that can be argued a lot of ways, and answered in a lot of good ways based on how one wants to measure. I can make a solid case that the UK gave the most - unlike the US and USSR which ended the war in stronger positions than they started, the UK actually gave everything it had to stop Nazism and (to a lesser extent) Imperial Japan. That's the fun of such arguments, there is no objective "correct" so the discussion is perpetual.
It's very easy for the soviets to say "we would have walked", well yeah, when the alternative to walking forward is machine guns behind you, you walk forward. That's not contribution, that's coercion.
Let's not get into patting ol' Stalin too firmly, this is a guy who signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement that divided Poland up without their consent. This is the guy that started the Winter War. This is the guy who deliberately starved MILLIONS of his own citizens because they had the temerity to exist as proof that Marxism is fundamentally flawed. This is the guy who let the Nazis get to Moscow due in no small part because he purged (you know, put on a wall regardless of evidence...) his officer corps months before Barbarossa kicked off. He has more blood on his hands than does Hitler, he was just more Russian about his sociopathic megalomania than was Adolf.
When we're incapable of finding truly worthy examples to look up to (flawed or not) we stagnate as a species. History is rife with examples, but the simplest is the "dark ages" (I know, not all "that" dark, but bear with me a moment). Rome, especially later Rome was a mess, they were still _the_ example of organized civilization in western Europe. After 453, advancement slowed to a crawl, and while life wasn't nearly as "dark" as sometimes reported, social progress didn't get back to Rome's levels for a thousand years.
Perspective is great, and I have no problem pointing to the greatest generation as imperfect - but that doesn't mean A) that you should be focusing on flaws over their accomplishments, which you are or B) that there aren't staggering differences in the difficulties they faced relative to the challenges for those that followed, so saying, "like us, they were deeply flawed" is, at best like suggesting a 4 year old put on a sock so they've overcome the same daily challenges as a parent.
The Soviets…
You're right!
The Soviets convinced Hitler to break himself on Stalingrad instead of doing smart things and waste his army in Greece. The Soviets convinced him not to counter D-Day, and were the ones flying the daytime bombing runs stripping down the replenishment capacity. The Soviets refused the shipments of food and arms America was sending to northern ports because they didn't need them! The Soviets held down Japan too which is what allowed the paltry Americans to sweep up the token parts.
Or maybe it was a team effort; a great many people from many countries had to commit themselves - all too often sacrifice themselves - to accomplish the defeat of the axis powers. Without the US + UK, the Soviets lose. Without the UK + Soviets, the US response is pointless. Without the US + Soviets, the UK gets run over.
tyranny of the minority? 46.1 vs 48.2 is hardly some tiny cabal overpowering the masses. 92+ % of elections the person with the most votes has won.
It's ridiculous to argue that we're descending towards some monolith of tyranny. The democrats will win again likely either this year or 2024. Then the republicans again in '28 or '32. And guess what -- that's a VERY GOOD THING. Here's a tip... in politics - if your side always wins, they're both cheating, and the bad guys.
More ideas = good. Even if that means there's donkey shit and elephant shit on the lawn occasionally.
"For every vote in California, the most populous state, a voter in Wyoming gets 57 votes for president. Go back to math class."
California, current population estimate per wikipedia ~ 39,512,223. 55 electoral votes (53 representatives 2 senators). 33,512,223/55 = 718,404 people per electoral vote.
Wyoming, current population estimate per wikipedia ~ 578,759. 3 electoral votes (1 representative 2 senators). 578759/3 = 192,920 people per electoral vote.
718404/192920 = 3.72.
---
Plessy vs. Ferguson was an EIGHTEEN ninety-six ruling. 1996 was 24 years ago.
---
You and I may disagree on the efficacy and value of the electoral college, but when I try to be condescending, I get my facts right.
Will made a comment for himself. HIMSELF. You made a comment about the intents of the Senate, and snidely implied he keep up. What the senate intends has not one fucking thing to do with what Will believes. You are the asshole here.
I didn't comment on what the Senate will do. I think you're right, that they'll fall in line and put Trump's nominee to the vote. Not because it's the moral choice, because it's the politically correct choice. If the situation were reversed - i.e. Rep. president in 2016, democratic senate, Merrick Garland would be on the bench right now, and if it were a dem. president and a democratic senate today, they'd put it up for a vote. Not because morality comes anywhere near this decision - those who play at the national level have a universal (entirely erroneous) assumption that power is meant to be used, and not using it is (again entirely erroneous) is a dereliction. Any other decision would require a far more mature leadership cadre, and no one in our national leadership lives in the same city with maturity.
1 rep for each 30k people would have us somewhere around 11k congresspeople, before even looking at representatives for DC or the territories. That's a difficult # to comprehend. I'm all for diluting the power of every position in the capital, but I'm not certain whether or not this could function. If nothing else, it would be an interesting mental experiment.
It's not about rural vs. urban (there are no rural states, there are states with big cities and states without big cities). It's culture. The culture of big cities (while unique to each city) is more similar to other big cities than the culture of rural parts of states or smaller cities.
The EC protects all of us from the culture of the cities dominating everything. If there were a single extra-terrestrial living in our country, who had unusual customs that weren't hurtful to anyone -- let's say they eat rocks for some innocuous example -- would you be ok if all the other people in the country were allowed to vote that eating rocks is against the law? The popular vote carried it, right?
Even if you weren't the ET, I hope you'd say that protecting the ET's right to exist as his culture dictates is probably worth us not being allowed to trample his rock-eating just out of spite.
Well, the EC makes sure the culture of big cities does not get to dominate the executive branch.
Even in a world where the cities really were the font of all good --- which they're not now, nor ever have been --- giving them power strips rights from the rest.
And lest you've failed to notice, the majority vote getter has won better than 92% of presidential elections, it's not like there's a vast rash of minority elections, and it's not like we're talking about some some private cabal are voting in the president, they're all within 5% of each other except for 1824.
So yes, I fear that populous CITIES will impose their will on everyone - they already have plenty of advantages over everyone else in too many ways.
That you haven't seen, "much of a case" is that you disagree, not that you haven't seen a case being made. I don't need you to agree, I do wish you'd stop lying to yourself about ideas in the world you don't agree with though, it makes me think your brain stopped growing about the time of that social studies class...
Just because McConnell has said something doesn't mean everyone on the right automatically has to support his decision. Part of being a grown up is self-determination. You should try to keep up.
There's a culture of the US, there's a culture of Massachusetts, there's a culture of Boston, and there's a culture of specific neighborhoods - and even a culture of a household. They're all similar, but each one has its own unique looks compared to like scale polities. The reason there are states is to preserve the idea that the culture of those living in Arizona - and the issues, circumstances, and problems for those living there don't get overshadowed by Michigan. What if Michigan got to make up all the laws for the country? We'd have laws about the great lakes determining water policy for desert areas in Arizona - laws that make great sense here wouldn't make any sense in AZ, and in many cases would be actively detrimental.
Why should (_the votes of_) a state with 570k people matter more than (_the votes of_) a state with 40 million? For the same reason as people seek to protect racial and/or economic minorities. To prevent a tyranny of the majority.
You don't know what I…
BoFan,
You don't know what I've "decided", so stop pre-judging.
First, I've stated in several posts in this here thread that DC probably should have representation. And just because I don't happen to think it should be a state itself doesn't mean that sound arguments couldn't change my mind --- But! The trouble is, there's a great number of people who think the world is necessarily antagonistic. I'm not your enemy. What I am is a thinking human, who wants REAL ARGUMENTS, not this "you're side bad, my side good" self-deluded bullshit.
Second, the electoral college does more to PROTECT people's equal rights than a straight popular vote. It's a system that makes sure that big cities don't get to get only their way because there happen to be more people there. Let's pretend that all people of one racial tone thought one way (the way bigots like you think) - White is still the biggest racial group in this country. Let's have a popular vote, all the white people vote exactly the same way, and that's how you get tyranny of race. The EC makes sure we don't get a tyranny of big cities. If you were half the open-minded person you lie to yourself that you are, you'd understand that.
I'm going to assume that you wouldn't be ok with a tyranny by all the white people over all the other skin tones. Why would you be ok with a tyranny of the big cities over the small or rural areas? It is EXACTLY the same thing.
Every vote has to matter, in order for that to happen, you have to overbalance some. That means some system like the electoral college.
There's room to make adjustments, but the system is a net win for everyone.
As far as "the electoral college just happens to produce electoral outcomes that you favor". First, you're aware that since WW2, the two sides have (basically) traded back and forth, yes? Second, that the electoral college doesn't ALWAYS produce outcomes you like is why you don't like it, so get off your fucking horse. The EC protects people from tyranny, nothing more, nothing less.
Short answer, sortof yes they should. Let's pretend for a moment that race is a real thing and not just a shade. In that world, all white people would vote identically. Would it be ok if white people got to decide all the laws because they're the biggest racial group?
I hope your answer is no. EVERYONE's vote should matter, whether they're a small town or a big city, and that means that not every vote can count exactly evenly. The best way to make sure the little places are heard is something like the electoral college.
DC is weird. You shouldn't be a state. You probably should have a representative. You definitely shouldn't be managed by congress anymore.
In many ways, DC should become a test ground for how to manage metropolitan areas in our country. It sucks that NYC decides for Albany, Rochester, and all the rest of NY what their presidential vote is. It sucks that LA, SF, and SJ decide for the east part of California, etc. It'd be great if for presidential purposes (and maybe for national representation (but not for states), that could be explored. It's tricky, and there's some bear traps waiting to get us, but in the intent of better elections and representation for all, it's worth looking at.
I've mentioned this elsewhere - (and you'd do better to say Wyoming, they're the most "over" represented state)
The answer is that this was an unintended consequence of the House of Representatives locking it's # at 435 in 1929. It was a bad decision. I'm 100% entirely in favor of fixing this bad decision!!!
The constitution calls for one representative for every 30k people. That's probably untenable. But, let's say we use Wyoming (approximate population 550k people) and then we set that as the basis for representatives. So we'd have (approximately) 565 total representatives right now, (it'd be higher, because state populations won't divide evenly of course, and I would tend to round up early, at say 200k, so if a state has 1,300,000 people, they'd get 3 representatives, 550k x2 + 200k simple math). The plus would be, representatives would be a lot closer to "accurately" representing the same number of people, and it would be much harder for the equation to get really out of whack than locking either the #of people per rep or the total # of reps.
The trend line is towards more and more urban population centers. 2020 aside, and it will be short-lived.
Straight popular vote means that rural cultures are entirely left out the further along we go. This is exactly why the electoral college was instituted in the first place.
I'm all for states distributing their electoral votes based more on voting distribution rather than as 100% draws, (i.e. I'm very much pro no more red-state/blue-state), but I'm never going to be a fan of NY/TX/CA/FL deciding the presidency, which is the trend line if we go to a straight popular vote. Why would a presidential candidate ever consider visiting Wyoming and hearing those citizens wants and needs, but only getting to talk to say 20k people at a time, when they could go to California and talk to 50k at a time? The only reason is because those 20k people in Wyoming have 3 electoral votes and those 50k in California have 1.
Now, sure I want the unequal representative issue fixed, but I've talked about that in 3 different posts on this page alone, so I'll eave that there.
I hear you, I understand, I just disagree.
There are more options, first past the post elections and such, which would (hopefully) open things up so that it's not always a two party election. I'm entirely in favor of considering options.
However, if you take the popular vote, the smaller towns and rural areas will lose. The population is only going to increasingly move towards population centers, and those population centers will increasingly consolidate. This year is bucking the trend, but humans are shockingly short-sighted, they'll remember why they like downtowns, and NY will grow again. Sooner than anybody might think.
I disagree with a lot of the things both major political parties do, and I'll freely admit I think the current president is an ass, but I at least have the moral integrity to look at the REALITY of all those stories above. And sure, there's imperfect in every one of them, but it's just about always - just as it was in the case of Pres Obama, and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan (which is as far back as I've been looking, but I have a lot of faith before them) people doing the best they could and making the best they could with the situations in front of them. Life is compromises, get over it. Sometimes you're going to agree with the party in charge, sometimes you're going to disagree, but they're both trying to do the most good they can, I promise.
For what it's worth children were separated on the border from their parents under Obama too, and Bush and Clinton. And for that matter, it's happened under every president and every country and every leader throughout all of history- if for example, a parent committed a crime, that parent would be separated from their children, it's called arrest... Crossing the border illegally is a crime, parent goes to holding cell, child gets sent to protective services until decisions can be made. It's not that fucking complicated. Are there mistakes made, are there bad situations, YEP, that's why there's inspectors and people doing walk throughs, and (if they had integrity) a free press to try to keep all this honest.
We do a really remarkably good job, period. No ifs and or buts. It's not perfect, but I absolutely positively completely and entirely promise you this - YOU WOULD NOT DO BETTER. Not on the overall, you might get a few of them better, you would get most of them worse. Because every one of those situations you put above has to be operated by people, and people are not perfect. Stop lying to yourself.
Can we change some laws, can we make things better, sure, of course, but that's life, we make incremental changes to keep making things better. That's also why we need people of all different mindsets and political perspectives, because MORE IDEAS ARE THE ONLY WAY WE MOVE FORWARD. We need ideas, everybody's ideas, some will be good, some will be bad, but we need all of them, if for no better reason than to use the bad ideas to help refine the good ones.
Get off your bigoted high horse. It's covered in bullshit.
valid point, and worth noting.
Insofar as the president shouldn't have as much power as he does (if you disagree, think about whichever guy you last disliked, think about all the ways you think that guy abused his power, and then think, hrm, if the position had less power to abuse, maybe we'd all be better off...) - the position is still supposed to be as representative of the country as a whole as it can be. As much as that could be argued as the population as a whole, the population in NY has one culture (a varied, mixed, and amazingly arrayed culture, but live in NY, then live in LA, Bronx and Manhattan are MUCH closer to each other than either is to Hollywood). I'd rather the varied cultures get represented as much as possible, rather than simply the majority populations. That's why the electoral college was instituted. New Hampshire didn't want to be overshadowed by Massachusetts or Virginia, they had a unique and interesting point of view all their own.
Or as an analogy, what if all the people of each skin tone voted identically - would you be ok if the largest skin tone vote just won every time simply because they were largest and damn all the rest? I kindof hope not...
I'd love to correct it, it's one of those happy fuckups that make me wish our Federal government would stop mucking around so often, it almost always creates unintended consequences which suck. Amazing how often the original constitution comes back to prove that all those balances, all those compromises really did try to cover as much as they possibly could - and why neither party should have all the power ever.
In 1929, the House locked their # at 435. While it would be ... unweildy to go back to the original 30k people per representative as originally written, we could do something like looking at the currently lowest population state (Wyoming @ ~ 550k people), and using that as a basis for representatives, so that every state gets representatives based on (approximately) 1 rep per 550k people (or maybe 250k or something like that).
I'm not going to argue the electoral college is flawless, among other things I'd like to see better proportionality and open the house back up so we can balance things back out, so if the smallest state has 550k population (~ Wyoming's current), that's what a representative is, and so California gets however many representatives based on one rep = ~ 550k people.
The people of the territories have never had a presidential vote, so I'm not moved by the territorial vote, though I'm not against the idea. Obviously the framers didn't intend for semi-permanent territories. Though, we should look at ways of trying to make it less ... cozy to be a territory. Puerto Rico would almost make the top half of a population list already if they were to become a state, for example.
I'm unmoved at all by Washington DC. It has 3 electors, and it's a shithole mess that I do not have a perfect fix for. It should NOT be a state. It probably should have more autonomy than it does. Ideally, I'd break off most metropolitan areas for electoral purposes, give them electors and representatives, but not senators. Detroit shouldn't dictate how Michigan goes just because it's big, Hell's votes should count too.
in straight economics, dollars given away (both charity by citizens and foreign aide), by tons of goods donated, by hours given in volunteer service *all by large margins
By lives given to solve problems in other places for no benefit other than a hopefully better future for all.
By our history - our will to improve ourselves, to fix our problems and advance our culture and our species.
You mean, besides the people who are wishing that the presidential vote was a straight popular vote?
Everyone is given the choice - and not voting IS a choice. "Of those who are interested in making their choice known" is WAY better than sitting around trying to get 100% of people to make a decision.
So 100% people (of age) vote. 40% of them choose not to have their vote counted, that's not the same thing as not existing.
yeah, none of that's true. Like not one sentence you've written there includes a correct statement. It's impressive.
Oh wait, "I personally believe..." That's subjective, not judged true or false. So no true statements, and a neutral. Still, sheesh.
Among the worst, the electoral college does give voting rights to people not states - it makes sure California, Texas, Florida, and New York don't get to tell everyone else what all the laws are. So it gives voting rights to all the other people in 46 other states, isn't that great!
oh, and unicameralism is the worst, but thanks for the suggestion.
First, their opinions don't matter more than everyone else's, for 8 years, the left was in charge, and 8 years before that the right, and 8 years before that the left, and 12 years before that the right, and 4 years left, and 8 years right and 12 years left and 8 years right and 20 years left and 12 years right and 8 left, etc etc. etc. (in the White House, congress is obviously a bit less consistent).
Sharing power between the sides is good for everyone, mostly because neither side has perfect answers.
If everything was a straight popular vote, our country would have died more than 200 years ago, and (among other bad effects) slavery would still exist. So... let's not do galacticly stupid, mmmkay? Republican government (the republican form of government, not the Republican party) is the best way we as a species have found to run a country. If you really need to know how long humans have known straight democracy was a bad idea, well, Plato put the proof on paper TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED years ago. Pure democracy is not a "progressive" idea, it's one of the most regressive ideas one can espouse.
Yep, you'll lose some you want to win, you'll win some you should've lost. That's life in the big game, deal.
We live in the most giving, most caring country in human history. Whether left or right, we all want good things for everyone. We disagree how to get there, but if you really think that the other side wants badness for others, you need to go talk to real people. I disagree with lots of people, I don't disagree with their intentions, just their execution of those intentions.
I don't believe for one second this country is irredeemably broken. What we do need is more grown up behavior, and less teenage-level "dealing with people who disagree with me is hard, I quit". Fuck that. Cuz I guarantee, if the left quits the right, there will be new lines within each country, and you'll break those, and again and again until you have individuals (and some family units). Humanity requires us to learn to live and accept and adapt to each other, that's the way this works. That's how peace happens, and progress, and maturity. Not quitting. Fuck that nonsense.
people vote, but we are not one people insofar as our daily lives (we are one nation, indivisible, but not one culture indivisible, see how that works?)
And for what it's worth, the electoral college wasn't a north vs. south issue, it was a big states vs. small states issue (by population, not land) - the same as it is today. Do you really think the way California runs itself would work well in Wyoming?
Or better said, should Wyoming get a vote? If we went straight popular vote, Wyoming's population shouldn't bother, their vote will. Never. Count. Again.
If you want to blame someone for the perceived injustice in the electoral college... blame the House of Representatives of 1929, who permanently locked the House to 435 seats. If the house proportioned by population the way the Constitution called for, California would have more votes, and therefore their "popular" vote would weigh more in the electoral college.
So, let's get back to more originalism, let's have a bit less short-sighted stupidity that always has unintended consequences, and WeimyWoodson can be a bit less angsty about shit he clearly doesn't understand in the first place.
to paraphrase Spurrier, "if you gotta cheat to win, you're trying too hard."
"care" - LOL. did I say LOL? Cuz I meant to say ROFLMAO.
That's a bit too much like the kid who uses cheat codes to hack a video game and thinks they've got skill, no, sorry.
Spectacular work. I disagree that it's 100% "luck". You're right, it's not possible to predict '95 NWU, it is possible to see Wisc is the most consistent of the west and notice that OSU has played them... less.
There's also ways to control better and worse positions in a schedule. Ever notice how the SEC championship caliber teams never (okay, rarely) seem to play two "hard" games in a row? It's not an accident. OSU doesn't have MSU/PSU/UM in a row the way UMich has had Wisc/PSU/MSU recently.
And while I don't know the relative gap between when a schedule is made vs. the year it's played, it's not so far that the schedule makers can't see "things", i.e. a senior laden Purdue or similar.
All that said, in the land of "fuck you's" to M, this is a small one, but small things add up, and it's justifiably infuriating that 30 years of this does indicate more than accidental behavior.
It's fascinating to me (not morbidly, just normal sized) that something as fundamental as "people have different perspectives based on life experience" made sense to me back before Obi-Wan's ghost told me in Jedi when I was 6, but you don't understand that now.
What about the fact that people see the world differently than you do is so fascinating to you? I'm genuinely curious.
If it helps, I will agree your mind is bottled.
"The amount of misinformation and everyone not being on the same page is the most worrying thing to me."
First, 'misinformation' is itself crap. Everything is still in learning mode. What we knew in January vs. what we knew in April vs. what we know now is staggering. And science isn't about _knowing_ anyway, it's about asking questions, and NEVER being done asking questions. Then there's the difficulty of scientists that disagree; it's easy to interpret data in different ways, so information is always going to be based on different sources and perspectives.
Don't worry so much about, 'everyone not being on the same page', that's foundational to any society bigger than 1 person, and true for alot of solo folks too. Your parents aren't always on the same page. You're not always on the same page with them. That's actually a good thing overall. Life has very few 1-size-fits-all answers.
or, tl;dr - you're worrying about the wrong stuff. Do your best for you, do your best for your family. Do your best not to judge your neighbors even if you think they're doing it, "wrong", cuz a lot of the time they think the same about you. That's plenty.
35k people per year die in car accidents. If you ask a health expert whether riding in cars is dangerous, their answer ought to be, "yes". Their job is not to evaluate risk vs. reward, it's to present and mitigate risk. So I can CLEARLY not choose the solutions in front of them...
MSU + PSU among other places have dismissed presidents within the last decade for demonstrating that they are untrustworthy. So I can CLEARLY not choose the solutions in front of them...
The virus originated in China, whose human population is entirely composed of humans, which is a species of that is entirely made up of imperfect people, so I can CLEARLY not choose the solutions from there...
You've given everything away, I know where the lack of maturity is! It's in thinking ANYBODY has all the right answers!!! Make your own mind up, do your best to get as much information as possible, and act accordingly. You'll screw up sometimes, learn from it, do better. Don't stop making up your own damned mind, because one of the very few things that's certain in this life is it's that there isn't any government agency, health agency, business, anything period that is going to get all the calls right all the time.
This oversimplification assumes "not seriously" means, "not agreeing with BlockM".
Disagreement does not mean what you think it means.
If I were to suggest that 2+2 = 5, and then argue that anyone who disagrees with me doesn't take math seriously, should my opinion carry much weight after that?
Math is a pretty objective thing, whereas leadership is a 99.99% subjective thing. You and I can sit down and agree to talk about math. You say 2+2=4, I say sunsets are more red than orange. You would definitely have a case to say I'm not taking the problem seriously. But - if you say 2+2=4, and I say 2+2=5, I'm not failing to take the problem seriously, I'm simply coming up with a different answer.
Now that we're agreed that most people are taking this seriously, even if they're not coming up with the same answer as you, let's look at being a little more open minded. Please note, I'm not saying your responses are wrong (or right) - I'm simply suggesting that a bit less prejudice in the world isn't a bad thing.
According to your name, you're a teacher, so let's look at this from a different direction --
When bad things happen in your school (big bad things, not kid didn't do their homework), how often is it one kid's fault? How often is there a teacher got distracted, a janitor left a door unlocked, a crazy schedule that left kids unsupervised, and two kids who are ok alone but together create chaos that all comes together to leave huge messes?
Nothing, especially at scale, is one entity's fault 100%. You should know better. When you teach your classes, I hope you do better. A warehouse full of "we know it's dangerous, but we don't know what to do with it and don't want to pay to deal with it" is a bright glowing 'pass the buck' sign to any bureaucracy.
Answering strictly informationally -
Because she went further than anyone else, and we are still above the national average for deaths relative to our population (7th overall). To say unequivocally that "it worked" is a difficult argument to make. The numbers are better now, they were worse a couple months ago, we don't know if it will look better or worse this coming winter.
Because her behavior at times closer resembled a stern mom rather than a governor. Which I'll acknowledge may be the right tactic in some cases, but it's not for everyone, and so some people are justifiably, "pissy". She was elected to be the state's governor, not its mom.
Because Ohio is still behind MI for cases, deaths, and rules. With a higher population and more population density. This isn't so much a reason to be mad at Gov. Whitmer as much as a very simple stat to suggest while it looks better right now, she sure hasn't gotten this whole virus "right".
Because she and/or her husband have in a couple cases tried to ignore her own rules.
---
This whole thing has been challenging. I wish every day that the world could all be at 0 infected and 0 deaths, and I'd be perfectly happy to make a yearly pilgrimage to bow before her, build her statues, and whatever else if she could accomplish that feat. That she can't means we have to judge her on what's in front of us. No one is doing this perfectly, that's humanity. I'm holding judgement until at least next year when we can look at a much bigger picture - I don't care about this week or the first months, or the lower infected now (thank goodness) -- I care what the results are as we move forward. Do we handle things well opening back up if/when there's a vaccine? Do we distribute the vaccine intelligently? What if there's no vaccine this fall? There's a LOT more governing to do before her final report card comes in on Covid.
On the record I'd LOVE if she got an A+ on that report card. Damn the politics, (because I'll admit I didn't vote for her, and won't in the future), this is about lives, and anyone who hopes for any leader's failure in a crisis just because of politics is pretty disgusting.