LA Grant

The only thing Trump has ever been a "master" at is hustling snake oil to the foolish. That is what he does. That is what he has always done. Can you imagine if Hillary had a resume that included her version of Trump University? Lol, this ridiculous board would be losing their damn minds. That's not even going into the multiple bankruptcies, and all the other sh*t. Trump is not ahead of the situation; he's not masterminding a game of 4-dimensional chess to take down the Deep State. It's merely a story, and a poorly told one, at that, and only works so long as you don't mind all of the smoke & mirrors -- Trump's counter-narrative adds up to exactly nothing. It's as truthful as Trump Steaks or building the wall and making Mexico pay for it. The reality is that Trump is an emotional, reactionary doofus with delusions of grandeur and entitlement... just like the majority of his base.

Gross. I'd definitely prefer you not think of me when you're having sex but... uh... more power to you.... ? Can't stop ya there! Y'know, Boyst, if you really want to tick off liberals – the one thing liberals DO NOT want conservatives to do — is to eat your own sh*t. You're free to do it, there's nothing we can do to stop you. And that's our weakness. Yes, by eating your own feces tonight & washing it down with a "Liberal Tears" mug of piss, you'll really show the Soros-sponsored nanny state who's boss. You're right that firing Mueller wouldn't stop the Cohen investigation and that Trump has no idea what he's talking about at any given moment. I'm just not quite convinced Trump won't try to do it anyway. You might like it if you ever ventured outside of the bubble, my dude.

Or because I hold more nuanced views on things than you're able/willing to comprehend. Could it be that I think independently and hold some positions that don't necessarily fit the standard dogma on the left? Ah but that would be impossible, wouldn't it? In your reality, everything fits neatly into a tidy little box. There is Good and there is Bad. Good happens to be whatever you agree with, and Bad is everything else, and I've noticed that your views on True and False similarly follow. Despite the repeated claims of "open-mindedness," what I've observed from you is that any time you're presented with an option to consider, or outright reject — you choose the latter. Ignorantia beatitudo est.

Which of these is most likely to come this week as Team Trump figures out how to respond? Firing Rosenstein Firing Mueller after Firing Rosenstein. Saber rattling and moves toward war A mass resignation or firing spree among his staff. I would include "5am Twitter rants" as an option, but... that's a given. Your obsession with me is sad, Boyst. Try e-harmony or get a pet or... something. Get some !@#$ing love in your life, man, for god's sake.

Exactly this. You get it. Thanks for posting.

Cohen is one of the most crooked lawyers the public has ever seen — quite an accomplishment. Cohen is most certainly f***ed. The raid wasn't even related to the Mueller investigation — the prosecutors & the warrant though it will almost certainly lead to bolstering Mueller's case, anyway. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/politics/fbi-raids-office-of-trumps-longtime-lawyer-michael-cohen.html Cohen is thoroughly dirty on multiple fronts. My hunch is Cohen will go the way of Manafort & Gates — a guilty plea in exchange for leniency & serving as witness in the coming Trump Trials. This whole thing is like if The Wire had a Season 6... but somehow even more depressing.

My favorite is when these dopes say things like "The bad actors in the federal government are going down" and "Donald Trump will be remembered as a hero equal to George Washington" in the same post. Can't wait until we hear the spin how this was actually a raid into the FISA abuse! Hillary's emails! Deep State! Benghazi! Did we mention Hillary's emails! At this point, they're just throwing sh*t at the wall and seeing sticks.

Hi Cugalabanza. I'm curious to know which part of Tasker's statement you agree with? If it's the benign observation that the US is a democratic republic, then we all agree. If it's the proposal to repeal the 17th Amendment and have the Senate elected by State legislatures instead of the public — why? Gerrymandering is incredibly !@#$ed up, and it's not because it's been advocated for by The Will of The People. Gerrymandering is one of the sneakiest and most crucial ways Congress holds onto their power. I'd like to see Congress be held more accountable. The only way I can see that happening is by The People having more power in changing Congress. Improving the ratio of the House, which was never intended to be a legislative body where 1 Rep = 700,000 citizens, would perhaps dramatically reshape the power imbalance. What do you think?

I've lost count of how many times you've tried now to label my belief system as "Marxist" (before that, according to you, I was an "Alinsky-ite"). You claim you're not disingenuous, you claim you're not intellectually dishonest. It's quite clear that we have different philosophies. What's less clear is your willingness to be truthful. In spite of all the evidence, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here to ask you a more open-ended philosophical question: Can you articulate what you believe my beliefs are, without the use of "Red Scare" terms with loaded meanings?

Let me ask you then — what force in America is capable of keeping the government in check? The free press? Or no, aren't they all fake news? The public? No, they cannot be trusted. Trump's twitter feed? You tell me. Well that's funny, as it betrays your complete ignorance of history & context. How many times has the 2nd Amendment been defined by the Supreme Court, and when? What did they decide? How many times has the 1st Amendment been defined by the Supreme Court? I'll wait. You just advocated for repealing the 17th Amendment — direct election of the Senate — but you also want government returned to The People. ? You should perhaps clarify in the future, exactly who you mean by "The People" since you also have said you oppose the "democracy" in "democratic republic," lest you be labeled again as "disingenuous." http://www.newsweek.com/im-holocaust-survivor-trumps-america-feels-germany-nazis-took-over-876965

You're the second poster in this thread to mention abolishing the 17th Amendment.... man, The Federalist blog really has a hold on PPP, huh? That belief system is fringe, utterly ridiculous, and can only be sustained in an alternate reality of hypothetical assumptions. Repealing, or more clearly defining, the 2nd Amendment (easily the most ambiguous Amendment, and the one that's lead to the most collateral damage to America's collective safety) is ludicrous.... Yet you also advocate for repealing the 17th Amendment, wanting to return to the Senate being elected by State legislatures instead of directly by the public. Such a move would only increase the power of the establishment machinery & increase political corruption, and you are okay with that. The purpose of increasing representation is to make the government more accountable to the public. The reason to oppose this, as you state yourself, is so that the power remains where it is — withheld from The People. You want the republic to be more of an oligarchy, whereas I want it to be more of a democracy. True or false?

The London law is clearly targeting gang violence. It's giving more power to law enforcement to stop criminals. This is to protect the innocent, and put more pressure & traps for gang members. The idea that this will hurt the innocent schoolteachers & accountants who walk around with personal-protection switch-blades is very silly. It's not going to affect people using knives in rural areas, or whatever. If that happens, if police were to spend more time hassling people over their Swiss army knives when they're camping, rather than on the gang members with switchblades -- nobody would stand for it. But it seems obvious London is looking at the violence & danger presented on the trains or the streets, looking for ways to curb muggings & assaults. Nevertheless, right-wing media/commenters only focus on rhetoric aspect of it with no appreciation for any nuance... as usual. Any effort to regulate society & improve conditions will be imperfect until all humans are replaced by sentient robots. So what's the better plan? Give knives & knife-training to all London citizens? Y'know, "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a knife is a good guy with a knife." Maybe it'd be better to escalate the situation -- London should legalize handguns again. Better yet, legalize AR-15s. I'm sure that would reduce gang violence.

They could use the office space they have already — maybe some of them have to share office space instead of having multiple rooms to themselves. I know you're joking with that but just saying -- I think the whole concept of career politicians needs a shake-up. Trump's election, if nothing else, speaks to that. Less royalty, more public service. Serving in the House of Representatives should be as profitable as jury duty, and just as glamorous... a bit of an exaggeration to make the point. You're right about The Wyoming Rule giving more to CA, TX, NY, as the three most populous states in the US are relatively underrepresented because of the fixed limit -- but at least 40 States would gain at least 1 additional Rep, and you'd see even more States benefit with the next Census and redistricting. The other proposal is The Cube Root Rule, which is a bit more logical and fair, but either would be an improvement. When you look at the population/rep ratios for legislative bodies in comparable countries, the difference is staggering, and I don't think anyone would argue that the US Congress is some utopian body of legislators. So, we all agree that Congress needs fixing, it's just a matter of how. It's interesting, the size of the House used to considered with some regularity by Congress before it was fixed 100 years ago. Over time, the 435 number has just been taken at face value..... but there's not any great reason for that. It's to no one's benefit — other than career politicians, and the lobbyists who can curry favor with them — to keep the cap fixed at 435.

Right, but it's a "chicken or the egg" catch-22, isn't it? To get better representation, we need more voters to care. For more voters to care, they need to see better representation. I don't think increasing the House would fix everything ... but that it could put the wheels in motion for more coalition-based solutions, and less ideological deadlocks. Reviving the demand for shorter term limits is a good solution. Improving the House ratio would be just as beneficial, if not moreso. IMO. Right. Well, I think the reason special interests are able to win as much as they do is because it's easier to control a small group within Congress than it would be to control a bigger group. Answering to a smaller electorate means the Reps would have to be more accountable, even if the turnout ratio remains where only 20% of those 200,000 actually vote. If the House increased to 1000 members, Congress would be at 1100 members (still well below the UK's total of 1430 with combined Houses of Lords and Commons) — and the House would need 501 votes for majority... which is more than there are current members of the House right now. Herding 218 cats is one thing... herding 501 is going to lead to more scratches for the special interests/lobbyists. Adding more voices may make the House more chaotic in some ways, but it's not unreasonable to think it would work at least as well as it does now, since one of the most comparable nations to the US is able to handle it effectively & pass laws. There's really nowhere to go but up for Congress at this point, so why not give the public more of a direct say in the matter? All that said — I don't think Congress would ever want to do this on their own. Why would they want to limit their individual power? The only way it could happen is if more people advocated for it, on both sides. In terms of demanding that, I don't see why that couldn't be a universally-desired change? Everyone agrees that Congress is inept & special interest groups wield too much power. A lot of people feel like their government doesn't represent them, whether you have Obama as president or Trump. As we can only elect 1 President, and we have no direct influence on the Supreme Court, and the Senate makes all states equal... only the House presents an opportunity for adding better representation.

Representing American citizens better would help improve the political culture in Washington, which is dominated by corporate interests. We know that a larger legislative body can still find consensus. It happens elsewhere in the developed world. In fact, you'll see that, whether the proposal comes from liberal or conservative writers, the question tends to be "Wait a minute, why are citizens in the UK represented better than in the US?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislatures_by_number_of_members The disparity shouldn't be that high.

Yes, correct. Thanks. Let me ask — do you have any thoughts to increasing the size of the House outside of EC considerations? Are there any benefits you can see to creating a better ratio, or only drawbacks?

Right, but that's exactly it, isn't it? A major factor for the incumbency rate is the size of the districts. Only 20% of the population votes in Congressional races, in part because they don't feel represented, and because the incumbent's victory always looks inevitable. Smaller districts = increased voter turnout, you'd think... because 1 vote out of 200k matters more than 1 out of 700k. The situation now is a vicious cycle & self-fulling prophecy. Anybody in support of democracy should want better turnout in elections. Otherwise, our elections might as well be as staged as they are in Egypt or Russia. As we don't want that, we should advocate for better representation.

Idk, I reckon it'd lead to the opposite result, really. You're more likely to see more populist/independent Reps, I'd think. Obviously both Rand Paul & Bernie Sanders are Senators, but those kinds of voices could have more opportunity for representation, if there were more seats with smaller base of constituents. Electorate districts of 200,000 — instead of 700k currently — would be more likely to get their Rep on the phone, or to influence their vote. With 1000 House Reps, it then dilutes the "importance" of any one individual. Therefore, it's more likely that even the Cable News monstrosities would reflect a wider range of voices on their programs.

1000 member House of Reps wouldn't necessarily be unwieldy, but it would be different. Maybe you'd have better success talking about "the elephant in the room" if you just asked directly? I get that you want to make this about presidential elections and the Electoral College, and yes, the current math for the EC means that votes in OH or FL have more worth than votes in NY or CA in a presidential election. This is only "good" if it works out for "your team" but it isn't good for... representative democracy. Theoretically, that would be an ideal that we share. Hence, I am trying to keep the discussion more holistic, as the House of Reps proportions have wider-ranging effects than simply as integers for the EC. Obviously, the more populated states would have more Reps than the less-populated states... exactly as they do now. Increasing the representation ratio to match the population is a problem if you think the votes for American citizens votes shouldn't matter equally.

You're an idiot.

Don't you think "fair representation" should be a big priority for the federal government? It's entirely possible that a House with 1000 Reps instead of 435 could find more coalition-based solutions, thereby curbing the dysfunction. Instead of 218 out of 435, you'd need 501 out of 1000 for majority. True, doing this wouldn't fix everything overnight, but it would probably lead to new ideas being presented, and more interesting debates.

How am I being disingenuous or duplicitous exactly? You're insisting on focusing on me, or my motives, which you believe must be untrustworthy, rather than the content posted. There've been proposals for this on both the left & the right. Try to talk about that instead of me, individually. I'm talking only about legal citizens of the US with the right to vote. There are laws that keep legal citizens from voting — for example, convicted felons in Florida lose the right to vote permanently, even after they've finished serving their sentence — but that's not the focus here. Plain and simple, left or right — Americans deserve to have more say in their government than they do now.

Yeah, I'm sure that's how you justify it. Bathroom graffiti > books. Obviously.

A) Yes but with smaller districts, it's more likely for more third-party candidates to break through, is it not? You'd be more likely to see more independents like Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders. Like one of the op-eds pointed to, for example, it wouldn't be unlikely to see libertarian candidates emerge from California's conservative enclaves. B) Wouldn't smaller districts lead to more challenges to the money & partisanship establishment? There is clearly a desire for shaking up the crumbling two party system, on both sides. C) I think it would make it harder for career politicians to hold onto their seats if they're defying the will of their district. D) Before the limit was set over a century ago, the House of Reps increased in size with each Census... why shouldn't we return to this model of proportional government? At the very least, why not aim to get the ratio closer to what it was in 1913, when the average Rep spoke for 200k citizens instead of 700k?

Oh my lord, you precious little snowflake... If you're not satisfied, you can have your money back. I answered you with more thoughtfulness than you did in your response. If you're aware of how the Electoral College is calculated, the answer is obvious. It appears like you're trying to frame this as a "partisan" issue, and I don't think it is. If the last two Democratic presidents won without the popular vote, I would be just as disturbed by the process. Of course, that can only be a hypothetical, can't it? Because that's now how it happened. The fixed limit for the House of Reps has a far more wide-ranging effect on US government than just the Electoral College. Being well-represented should matter to you. Don't know how else to say it.