snafu

No real content. Just a test. So the "moderation actions only say "delete". I'm assuming it is the entire topic.

Can club moderators hand out warning points or suspensions?

Yes, it would make a difference. For some of us, having a diversity of views, no matter how simply or immaturely they are expressed, is actually a good thing. People who want to reside in an echo chamber can go somewhere else. The thing about the most recent PPP turmoil is that posters came into this subforum and tried to change it, rather than adapting or leaving it alone. Transferring PPP to "club" status whereby club moderators can open or close topics off to others isn't really a "dialogue". I understand that people aren't here to have their minds changed or be converted, but it is good to be reminded that others have different views. The long-time moderator here has made it pretty clear with his posts that he's got a fairly conservative take on the world -- but you don't see him banning voices that don't share his world view. That's the way it should be. Edit: is there a way that a moderator can ban a person from a particular sub-forum?

Not our night.

The Chinese Communist Party has proven over and over again (from way before Trump’s time and with numerous countries) that you can’t trust their words; even “and” and “but”. I’m less interested in what China says about us. They obviously think they’re ascendant and everyone else will need to play their game. I’m more interested in what we do about China.

Both he and Morgan were great broadcasters. Learned a lot from each of them.

Saturday afternoon baseball. It was a choice among the NYY, Dodgers, Reds, or Red Sox. That’s Reds team was great. I went with the Sox when I was around 7 years old.

I always find this odd. So many people (perhaps you, perhaps not) consider a Trump to be a complete buffoon with no redeeming qualities. Then they complain that he doesn’t do anything. So the question comes to my mind: Do we want Trump to run things, or do we want Trump to avoid running things? You described accomplishments that are normally delegated to others (whether these things are great accomplishments or not isn’t the issue). The President isn’t a King, and even if he were, other people carry out policy.

So he hired the best, but the best didn’t want to work for him because of his policies? Wouldn’t discussing policies be pretty important before Trump hired these people? It is pretty easy to avoid miscalculation if you ask basic questions.

The point is that both candidates are “horses”, as you put it.

Wow, indeed! ...still need a goaltender.

No. It will all come out, including indictments.

Having kids, I’ve learned that I’m able to see the future, and it is always disappointing when I see the worst — and it comes true.

Plurality politics make for strange results. You’re seeing it within the Democrat party this year. I’m not 100% sold on third or fourth or fifth parties. People already complain that the President didn’t win the popular vote. With third parties you’d see a lot of backroom dealmaking. As for packing, I’d say a couple things: (1) using the Garland “wrong” (and I didn’t like what happened back then) as justification for packing the Court is juvenile and it really doesn’t look into the future of recrimination on this issue. Some day we would have 27 Justices based on past partisan transgressions. (2) if Biden wins, he will get his chance at likely two appointments in his 4 years. One of them might be Thomas, irony of ironies. Why bother to pack the Court? (3) packing the Court might be within the President’s power, but overreach has political blowback consequences. (4) Even what would appear to be a 6-3 conservative majority doesn’t always see results. Roberts isn’t a stalwart conservative by any means. Gorsuch is up in the air, as well.

Foghorn Leghorn

I grew a beard. My wife hated it so much she told me that she wanted to burn it off my face. I believe she was 100% serious. I shaved it off that day.

So far...

Simple. Note that I don't support this at all, but if it will be then this is how I'd want it. Make up to 20 or so Justices. Make sure that they're as left/right/center balanced as possible (how we get there I don't know). Then for each case, randomly select 13 to sit and decide the matter. The numbers 20 and 13 are arbitrary. These can be higher or lower so that the panel is balanced.

I understand that about the Court. Republicans have had the Executive and both branches of Congress before. Democrats have, too. Nobody has seriously called for packing the Court ever since Roosevelt got himself screwed up in that. I find it extremely curious that packing the Court has become an issue alongside calls for abolishing the Electoral College and making states out of D.C and Puerto Rico. You don't think there's a message there: change the rules to suit your goal of making a one-party county? I live in a one-party City inside a one-party state. I can tell you that it sucks.

No, I love my idea -- though I don't think it is strictly my idea (I think Maine and Nebraska split their EC votes). Ask me about Court packing...

The number of Electors is based upon the number of congressional districts, plus 2 Senators. If you're talking about Senators throwing off that number, there are probably an equal number of conservative "small population" states such that they'd cancel each other out (like Rhode Island vs. Wyoming). The counterpoint to your swing-state focus is that no candidate would bother to campaign or visit non-populated areas when the most eyes and ears are concentrated in cities. Talk about disenfranchisement. Is the 3/5th compromise still an issue today? Everyone's vote is counted 1:1. Arbitrary areas of land? People vote. People who live in our country and who's lives are just as affected by federal legislation no matter where they live. There's a census every ten years. Federal budget dollars go to where the people are. Congress controls the purse strings. NYC has 13 Congressional seats. Don't worry too much about the residents of the City getting shut out. Ask most any Western New Yorker what they think about that. Way back when, @Nanker and I had a discussion about the EC. I was assigned the "con" side. Arguing against the EC was difficult for me and my only proposal to tweak it was similar to what you're saying. Count the popular vote for President for EACH Congressional district -- not county by county like they do now -- and assign the elector to go vote as the district voted. Assign the two Senator-electors to vote for the statewide winner.

This is a great point. I mean, he can get the same result from a free barber school cut. It certainly calls into question his judgment skills. These conditions have held before -- but there was no call to pack the Court. Why would that be different today? Why remove all checks and balances? That can't be true if Biden supports packing the Court.

Do you think the Electoral College is a form of tyranny? It is in place to permit States to have their individual voices -- in proportion to their population and representation in Congress. This is still important, even though (1) the Executive branch has grown larger and more influential than the Legislative, and (b) Federal powers have eaten away at traditionally local governance. I'm sure you realize that different states and regions have different expectations from their governments.

Do you realize how much of a hypocrite you are by saying this?

Sure, Covid-19 is a huge issue on this election. It certainly isn't the only issue, and an honest voter should see that while the Federal response could have been much better, so should the responses of each state. Do you want Trump to be the ineffective criminal liar dictator who imposes his fascist will on all states at the same time, or not? Harris' credentials are also an issue. Perhaps not 900 lbs, more like 650 lbs.