Monday, July 8, 2019

maudlin musings on select obscure parts of American history past, present and future

I replied:
Trump has from time to time insinuated and even suggested staying in the White House after 2 terms. It is entirely possible his reference to the American revolutionists taking over the airports back then was a God-induced Freudian slip laying bare his future hopes, dreams, schemes.

Sancho rejoined:
It's funny that you really think that since, I recall right wing conspiracy theorists predicting the same thing about President Obama!  

Politics is a hilarious thing in how everything and everyone is tainted by it! Obama and Trump have totally unmasked the system for me... who the hell still believes that any of this is real?!  

I replied:
Welcome to the blinding lightEmojiEmoji. I told u in 2008 that Obama was not what he appeared to be. I realized that after I contributed to his campaign, and then he set out to fix my vision even before he beat out Hillary for the Dem nomination. Again, I offer that youse and meese run for the White House, and we flip a coin each morning to decide pres and vp duties. That way, we can cancel out each other's executive privilege pronouncements, before we do any serious damage.

Meanwhile, a south Alabama amiga, whom I don't imagine being selected to play Mary Poppins in a local theatrical production, reacted to my calling her Liza in yesterday's Cluster B NPD goat nation: America post at this blog:

I'm staring in disbelief that I skimmed and missed "Liza". Oh no, you did not. BASHINSKY! I shall find a way to repay this, see if I don't.
Liza! Now you find that I secretly take myself utterly seriously and the air of detachment over egoic issues is naught but a thin veneer, a badly played ruse, at best.
*crumpling paper sounds*
Back to the drawing board, we've found a flaw. This one is NIGH sensitive about her family name of Elizabeth. Prissy! lol
Joann is my first name, Elizabeth what I was called as Joann Elizabeth was my Great Aunt's name and every generation had Elizabeth as middle name for a very long time. 7 generations, actually.
Please never shorten it, the females I descend from descend on me about it like you would not believe. Well, you would.
  1. Heh, I used Liza because I was feeling a little devilish and I recalled you once telling me Eliz was okay, but never Liza. I am so very sorry to see I unwittingly unleashed on you a very long family tree with roots I suppose spring from the core of the planet beneath your Southern Belle antiquities.

Last, today, a Big Pine Key (Florida Keys) Republican friend put a Paul Revere cry out on Facebook yesterday:

Danny Coll

Wake up America!
They are trying to steal our country!

Last week the Democratic controlled House of Representatives introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral college. It seems that, since they couldn't win the last presidential election under the rules that have existed for almost 250 years, they want to change the rules. Below is an excellent explanation on why this is a very bad idea.

A 39 second read you will want to pass on.
In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them..
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond (or Staten Island) & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!'s been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.
Well worth the 39 seconds to read. Now please pass it on!

  • Steve Miller The first bills that they sent up were to end Gerrymandering, Campaign financing, ethics and voting rights. McConnell won't bring them to the floor. That is fear. Fear that his own people might vote for reforms introduced by Democrats. McConnell is taking away the will of the people, the right to be heard. He is attempting to steal your country
  • Jeff Sharp Danny Coll RE:"Last week the Democratic controlled House of Representatives introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral college."

    I am not disputing the facts that you outlined but Steve Miller brings up an interesting counter point that "The first b
    ills that they sent up were to end Gerrymandering, Campaign financing, ethics and voting rights."

    We all understand how a bill becomes law so I will not digress down that rabbit hole. I have heard people suggest eliminating the Electoral College but have not read the bill. Could you provide a copy of it?

    Any attempt at actually passing would require ratification by the Senate, the President and likely a majority of States. Furthermore, before it took effect it would be challenged in the courts and would be declared unconstitutional.

    I am not concerned with it ever happening but the idea that a Congressman would be so lacking in understanding of our political system is amazing. I would like to see who introduced it and who signed on to it.

    Bills get introduced all of the time and the percentage that actually go to the floor for a vote is small. I do find it disturbing but if it were to go forward it would spark heavy debate and develop a better understanding of our form of government to a lot of people.

  • Sloan Bashinsky

    Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a vocal critic of President Trump, on Thursday introduced two bills to eliminate the Electoral College and prevent presidents from pardoning themselves or their family members.

    Cohen introduced the constitutional amendments on the first night of the 116th Congress, both digs at Trump. 

    “Presidents should not pardon themselves, their families, their administration or campaign staff," Cohen said in a statement. "This constitutional amendment would expressly prohibit this and any future president, from abusing the pardon power.”

    The amendments are unlikely to pass since they require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

    Dem introduces bills to eliminate Electoral College, stop presidents from pardoning themselves
    Dem introduces bills to eliminate Electoral College, stop presidents from…
    Dem introduces bills to eliminate Electoral College, stop presidents from pardoning themselves

  • Sloan Bashinsky When the Constitution was being negotiated, slave states were permitted to count each slave as 3/5 of a white person, in determining how many members in the House of Representatives each state would have:

    During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, as the delegates were considering how to allot representation for each state, the question arose: How to count the slave population?

    The Southern states were fearful that they would be overwhelmed in the House by the “large” states—Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. To increase their representation, the Southern states wanted their large number of slaves to be included in the population count. Of course, the large states did not want to relinquish their numerical advantage in the House. Many delegates argued slaves should not be counted at all—after all, they said, slaves are property, not persons.

    The result of the debate set forth in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution was a compromise, incorporating ideas of both property and person: Population would be calculated by adding “the whole Number of free persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed,” plus “three fifths of all other Persons.”

    Those “other Persons,” of course, were slaves.

    Link: Federalist No. 54

    Article 1, Section 2 was "abolished" by Amendment XIII after the Civil War.

    The three-fifths compromise: Rationalizing the irrational - National Constitution Center
    The three-fifths compromise: Rationalizing the irrational - National…
    The three-fifths compromise: Rationalizing the irrational - National Constitution Center

No comments: